





ΕὙΘΎΦΡΩΝ 


HERN NAL LIBRARY FACILITY 


AON DANN 


{@dtooo T¥+t+O WM 





— 


“| 
κι ἢ} 
--: ἢ 
ἘΠῚ 
ΘΙ 
Z it 
<5 
en 
O 

=] 














σλι 
Sieg ie 











wah AALS wpe 


ζ SSS ν᾿ 
Sl ee we 


ylytal 


Ws \! 4 
NE eS 
L\\ Negi tis! as 


ὶ 
δὴ = Ξε 
q SS «| NN ONG ἢ 
νὰν ΝᾺ bad Me 
. . \ oy 
. \ Ἂν" »ις . EN 
\ a SNe Ne EC WF 
ἊΝ SANs = ~ 
. «ΩΝ » 
Dy : Zt 
DN SN 4 
® Ss me SF” DS; 
g 





jemoriam 


Issac Flagg 













































































a Ξ 6.5.1 


ΤῊΝ 


























Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


httos://archive.org/details/platoseuthyphroOOplat 











GREEK SERIES FOR COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS 


EDITED 


UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF 


HERBERT WEIR SMYTH, Pu.D. 


ELIOT PROFESSOR OF GREEK LITERATURE IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY 


ΕΓ 9.5 


τ ΓΙ Y¥ PAO 


WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES 
BY 


WEE LAM ART EWR: HET DEE. Pr. D: 


PROFESSOR IN IOWA COLLEGE 


—.o7g,, co —- 


NEW YORK -:- CINCINNATI -:: CHICAGO 
AMERICAN BOOK COMPANY 


COPYRIGHT, 1902, BY 


BOOK COMPANY. 


AMERICAN 


ENTERED AT STATIONERS’ Hatt, Lonpon. 


EUTHYPHRO. 


HEIDEL. 


ve wow 
ῳ ν 


[δ 


a Sa 
er 

MY PARENTS 
474406 


‘pepe λϑισα eBueyoxa eieouiend 


a... 









PREnACH 


E1cuT or nine years ago I was much impressed by the difficulties 
that beset the teacher who undertakes to introduce the student to 
Plato by offering him first the Apology of Socrates. ‘There is no dis- 
puting the desirability of reading that noble defense of the typical 
sage. But when the Freshman begins the study of it, there occurs 
at once to his mind the inevitable question, why the Athenian dicasts 
should have tried and condemned so exemplary a citizen. Having at 
best a vague knowledge of the personality and method of Socrates, he 
obtains no intelligible answer to his questionings. For neither the 
Apology nor Xenophon’s Memorabilia, which is sometimes read, affords 
the needed insight. After some experimenting with other works, I 
repeatedly tried the Huwthyphro. The success of the attempt was 
highly gratifying, since it met with no serious obstacles but the diffi- 
culty of finding a suitable edition. Therefore I determined at once 
to do what I could to supply a book such as I had desiderated. ‘The 
design, so long ago conceived and so often postponed to more urgent 
duties, is now accomplished. How well or ill I have done my work 
may be left to the judgment of the teachers into whose hands the 
book shall fall. 

In the preparation of the notes, the editions of Wohlrab, Fritzsche, 
Schanz, and Adam were consulted with profit, and here and there a 
good suggestion was derived from Forman’s Se/ections from Plato. 
But constant reading of the other dialogues of Plato and diligent use 
of Ast’s Lexicon FPlatonicum supplied the materials from which it was 
my most difficult task to make the proper selection. For the bibliog- 
raphy, included in the Appendix, I am chiefly indebted to Fritzsche’s 
edition ; but I have been at great pains to supplement the list of works 
there cited and to make it fairly complete to the present year. 

At an earlier stage in the evolution of the, book, the notes profited 
by the generously offered suggestions of my friend, Dr. W. H. Wait, 
of the University of Michigan ; and latterly, in preparing the manu- 
script for the printer, I have received much helpful criticism from the 
editor of the series, Professor Herbert Weir Smyth, of Harvard Uni- 
versity. To these scholars and to other friends who have placed me 
under lasting obligations by their kind offices, I would express my 
sincere gratitude. 


W. A. H. 
GRINNELL, IOWA, 


2 








INTRODUCTION 


§x. PLATO 


Pato was born in the year 427 B.c. In later times his disciples 
celebrated the 7th day of Thargelion (May 27) as his birthday. 
Whether he was born at Athens or on the island of Aegina, where 
-his father possessed an estate, cannot now be determined.* His father, 
Ariston, claimed descent from King Codrus; and his mother, Peric- 
tione, who was a sister of Charmides, traced her lineage back to Solon. 
He had two brothers, Adimantus and Glaucon, whom he introduces to 
us in his Repudiic, and a sister Potone, whose son, Speusippus, suc- 
ceeded his uncle in the headship of the Academy. 

In his youth Plato enjoyed all the educational advantages to be 
had in Athens, and distinguished himself in all branches. He excelled 
in gymnastics to such a degree that he won the prize in wrestling at 
the Isthmian games. In music also he was proficient, writing dithy- 
rambs and tragedies, besides other forms of poetry. It is related of 
him that he abandoned poetry, to which he was disposed to devote 
“his life, for the pursuit of philosophy, on the occasion of his meeting 
with Socrates, an event which occurred in his twentieth year. Although 
he valued his former teacher, Cratylus the Heraclitean, and afterward 
dedicated to his memory a dialogue that derived its title from his 
mame, yet the enthusiastic devotion of his mature manhood was 
kindled by Socrates, with whom he was closely associated until his 
master’s trial and death, in 399. For him also he erected a monument 
more enduring than bronze in his numerous dialogues ; for in all but 
one he has introduced the genial and heroic character of Socrates, 
who was to him the embodiment of philosophy and philosophical 
method. 

Shortly after the death of the master, according to an ancient 
report, Plato, with other disciples of Socrates, betook himself to 


9 





ΤΟ INTRODUCTION 


Megara, where there gathered about the person of Euclides, the phi- 
losopher, a circle of congenial companions. Subsequently he made 
journeys to Cyrene and Egypt, and three to Syracuse, in Sicily, in the 
years (approximately) 388, 367, and 360. The former were under- 
taken in pursuit of knowledge ; the latter, made at the solicitation of 
Dion and Dionysius, in the hope of finding or preparing a fit soil in 
which to plant the political and social reforms on which Plato’s heart 
was set. Aristocrat as he was by birth and temper, he could not 
sympathize with the headless democracy of Athens which had taken 
the life of Socrates; but the aristocracy of his day was hardly more 
to his liking. Thus cut off from participation in the actual con- 
duct of affairs in his own city, he turned elsewhere for a field in which 
to exercise his political instincts. And though his efforts came to 
naught, his writings, notably the Gorgias and the Republic, have been 
a power for political righteousness and moral reform in all ages. 

After his return from the first voyage to Sicily, presumably about 
385, Plato founded his school, first in the gymnasium in the precincts 
of the hero Academus, then in a garden of his own in the immediate 
vicinity. Here he gathered about himself many of the most promising 
youths of Greece, chief among them Aristotle, and instructed them, 
without exacting a fee, just as Socrates had done. Later, the exigen- 
cies of instruction led him to resort to the lecture method. Mean- 
while, not only to fix the results of discourses held between master 
and disciples, but also to satisfy his artistic instincts and obtain a larger 
audience for his thoughts, he wrought assiduously at his dialogues, and 
published them from time to time. 

All Plato’s writings, by a lucky chance, have been preserved, and 
in them we possess the most important body of artistic prose bequeathed 
to posterity by the Greek people. Not only are his thoughts a peren- 
nial source of inspiration to philosophy, to which they constitute the 
best introduction, but they afford a powerful stimulus to right living. 
Nowhere are better-wrought characters to be met, not even in the 
masterpieces of the drama; and the evolution of the argument, con- 
ducted before our eyes, has all the fascination of one’s own endeavors 
after truth. All the skill of the consummate artist is manifested also in 
the style, which varies with the mood and the theme, and possesses the 


thoughts adds freshness to the discourse, and is employed chiefly as 
an adjunct to the dramatic conduct of the plot. 

Forty-two dialogues and thirteen letters have come down to us 
under the name of Plato; but all of the latter, and perhaps fifteen 
of the former, are not genuine. ‘There remain enough to support the 
great reputation of Plato as a writer and a philosopher. He died, 
upward of eighty years of age, in 347 B.C. 


$2. SOCRATES 


Socrates, the son of the statuary Sophroniscus and the midwife Phae- 
narete, was born at Athens, presumably in 469 B.c. He learned, and 
for a time practised, the art of his father; but he soon became aware 
of a higher vocation, and thenceforward devoted himself to philosophy, 
which to his view was hardly to be distinguished from religion. 

The ancient accounts of his personal presence present to us a singu- 
lar figure in the midst of the stirring life of Athens. In spite of his 

singularities, he was in all respects a dutiful citizen. While he sought 
no distinction by political activity, he fought courageously at Potidaea, 
Delium, and Amphipolis in the Peloponnesian war; and as prytanis, 
or temporary chairman of the Senate, he resolutely blocked for a time 
the unconstitutional procedure in the case of the generals who were 
brought to trial after the battle at the Arginusan Islands, in 406 B.c. 
His judgment and his inner Oracle (éaporov σημεῖον) told him that 
politics were not his proper sphere. He had a high calling, a divine 
mission to fulfil; it was his task to prepare the way for a social state 
founded on justice and unprejudiced insight, in which man should 
come to know his own vocation and to realize it in his life. 

He was not a professed philosopher, neither was he a Sophist ; but 
the unthinking did not discriminate. He had probably received little 
formal instruction ; but he had certainly heard on occasion some of 
the foremost philosophers, such as Protagoras and Parmenides. On the 
other hand he declined to be known as a teacher, and hence received 

no fees. He professed indeed to have no knowledge that could be 
conveyed or purveyed. In his quaint manner, he said that he followed 


INTRODUCTION ΓΙ 
freedom of the well-bred man who does, as if by instinct, the proper 
thing. The poetic color with which Plato occasionally invests his 














12 INTRODUCTION 


the profession of his mother and practised intellectual midwifery (μαιευ- 
τική). That is to say, being only a man in quest of truth, he willingly 
availed himself of the privilege of the skilled practitioner to assist to 
the birth 4vhatever germs of truth lay in the minds of his fellows. 

He was fond of the Delphic injunction, γνῶθι σαυτόν, Know thy- 
self.” Of all the men then living he had most perfectly taken his own 
intellectual measure. He knew his limitations, and this constituted 
him the wisest man of his age. ‘This self-knowledge gave him a telling 
advantage in discussion, and by keeping him always well within the 
truth, led to habitual under-statement and to the habit of mind 
proverbially known as his “ irony.” | 

The Sophists, so far as they had a philosophical doctrine, taught that 
nothing universally or necessarily valid could be said of anything. In 
other words, they contended that there was no knowledge of things in 
their true natures. Socrates, who perceived the pernicious character 
of such teaching, was indeed willing to grant that there was no knowl- 
edge of things in their true natures, but he could not concede that 
such knowledge was impossible. ‘Granted that we have not the 
truth,” we may fancy him saying to the Sophists, “then it behooves 
us to seek it; and we shall surely find it if we will only clarify our 
thinking and free our thoughts of inner contradiction. For, in this 
modified sense, man 7s, as you are fain to say, the measure of all truth 
and untruth.” So he made, as Aristotle well said, two conspicuous 
contributions to philosophy : first, the ¢wductive procedure, 1.6. ἃ method 
of ascertaining our true-meanings by citing concrete examples, and of 
correcting our notions by adducing negative instances ; second, def- 
nitions, the scientific statement of one’s meaning in reference to a 
thing, by inciuding all essential and excluding all non-essential marks. 
Convinced as he was that the true function of the intelligence is to 
ascertain the ends to which we should direct our conduct and the 
means by which they may best be attained, he believed that to do our 
duty we need_only-to now it. Hence he declared that virtue is 
knowledge and vice is ignorance ; or, more concretely, that no “one_is 
voluntarily bad. Tt is no wonder that, entertaining this belief, he 
devoted himself with singular enthusiasm to the God-given mission 
of awakening in men this saving insight. 


INTRODUCTION 13 































This position has been fiercely assailed ever since the days of Aris- 
totle, and by some it has even been regarded as a transparent sophism. 
So to consider it were, however, a wholly unpardonable misapprehen- 
sion. It was manifestly true of Socrates_himself that to know the truth 
was to live it. And the whole edifice δὲ ἢ moral education is founded on 
this assumption. Unless morality may be inculcated by instruction, 
civilization does not bear within itself the seeds of moral progress. 
The real question is that which relates to the method of instruction ; 
and it must be granted that present-day methods do fall far short of 
the ideal. Greek education, however, did, at least in theory, what we 
moderns do not even seriously attempt. It was calculated to cultivate 
equally the passive —z.e. the receptive or intellectual —nature, by 
music, which, as understood by the Greeks, comprehended also the 
arts and letters; and the active—z.c. the responsive or moral 
nature, by gymnastic. And so this doctrine of Socrates and Plato, 
which indeed merely formulated the principles basic to Greek society, 
provoked no strong protest until Greek education, together with the 

whole framework of Greek society, had been undermined. And Aris- 
totle, its first critic, was in his sympathies scarcely more than half a 
Greek. 
It is unnecessary here to discuss the trial and death of Socrates. 
The conservative and unreflecting forces of society brought his activity 
toa sudden end, in a general reaction, in the year 399 B.c. Whether 
the men who sat in judgment on his life repented of their decision, we 
have no means of knowing; but succeeding generations have canonized 





him in a way that shows that his real significance for mankind was 
more nearly akin to that of the founder of a religion than to that of 
ἃ philosopher. 

It was meet that the greatest of his disciples should write the Aw- 
thyphro, a dialogue in which the master is made to discourse in a solemn 


—— 


houron the problems involved in man’s reverence for the Div e Divine. 


§3. EUTHYPHRO 


Of Euthyphro, who is represented in our dialogue as meeting Soc- 
rates at the court of the King Archon and discoursing with him on 
he true nature of piety, we know ultimately only what may be learned 


14 INTRODUCTION 


from Plato. Apart from our dialogue, he is mentioned also in the 
Cratylus. There he is characterized as a reckless etymologist, whose 
distinctions are often far-fetched and ridiculous. In the ALuthyphro 
he is a μάντις, seer, devoted to matters of religion and orthodox to 
a fault. He says of himself that he is commonly ridiculed when he 
utters a prophecy in the public assembly; but such is his conceit 
of superior knowledge that he attributes their treatment of him to 
the ignorance of the people. It was, indeed, in consequence of his 
extreme orthodoxy and his disposition to govern his conduct in 
accordance with analogies derived from his exceptional knowledge of 
the behavior of the gods, that he was led to bring against his father 
the strange and fanatical action for manslaughter, which affords occa- 
sion for our dialogue. 

Dramatically, he is, of course, employed primarily as a foil to set off 
the character and the conduct of Socrates. There is, first of all, the 
contrast between the intellectual slovenliness of Euthyphro and the 
acute philosophical method of Socrates. But this characteristic 
Euthyphro shares with many others whom Plato has sketched in his 
minor dialogues. There is, however, a second contrast which possesses 
for us far greater significance. _ Euthyphro represents the old-style 
piety which, founded on the traditions of the fathers, has not reflected 
upon its own sanctions and entertains no doubt of their validity. 
The piety of Euthyphro is well-intentioned, but it is unenlightened ; 
and so, in the special case of his relations to his father, leads him 
into a course of conduct which seems to be the reverse of pious. 
Socrates, on the contrary, is the type of the new piety. Although he 
is punctilious in the observance of the forms of the religion of the 
Athenian state, he feels bound to scrutinize and question traditional 
ideals and sanctions, applying to them the standard of the higher 
moral ideal to which he has attained. To Socrates the conduct of 
Euthyphro seems inexcusable; but it is inevitable that the people, — 
who share Euthyphro’s views and ideals, should regard with grave sus- 
picion Socrates’s activity in unsettling the minds of the Athenian youth. 
Bigoted as Euthyphro is in other respects, he is generous in his regard 
for Socrates, and recognizes him, in spite of their difference, as the 
saving influence of the city (see 3 A). 


INTRODUCTION τς 


84. THE CONTENTS OF THE DIALOGUE 


Socrates and Euthyphro are represented as meeting at the court of 
the King Archon. In response to a question, the former. explains that 


- he has come to this place, which lies so far from his accustomed haunts 


\ 





at the Lyceum, bent on business connected with the indictment lodged 
against him by Meletus. He speaks ironically of the impeachment 
and contemptuously of his accuser. As for Euthyphro, he professes 
to see in the indictment only additional evidence of the jealousy with 


which seers are regarded by the people; for they laugh at him when- 


ever he prophesies in the assembly. But ridicule, Socrates avers, is 
not a matter of much consequence when compared with an indictment 
on a capital charge. Euthyphro is niggardly of his wisdom and keeps 
his own counsels without endeavoring to make proselytes, whereas 
Socrates has a benevolent way of pouring out his thoughts to all comers, 
and so incurs the suspicion of having obtained a following. This cir- 
cumstance probably accounts for the difference in the people’s attitude 
toward them: they laugh at Euthyphro, but strike at Socrates with 
intent to kill (2 A-3 E). 

Euthyphro expresses his confident ἀπ that the matter will 
end in nothing, and that he himself will have equal success in his suit. 
Seeing his eagerness to tell of his own case, Socrates requests Euthyphro 
to explain its nature. We learn then that Euthyphro is prosecuting 
his father for manslaughter. A poor day-laborer on their farm in 
Naxus had, in a drunken quarrel, slain one of their slaves. There- 
upon his father had bound the murderer and cast him into a ditch, 
intending to defer a final disposition of his case until instructions on 
that subject should be obtained from the interpreters of religion at 
Athens. Meanwhile, as was to have been expected, the man died of 
neglect and « exposure, before the messenger returned. Euthyphro 
therefore holds his father responsible for his death and deals with him 
as with one defiled with bloodguiltiness (3 E-4 E). ‘There is thus 
at once suggested the question whether it is consistent with piety for 
ἃ son 50. to prosecute his father. Does E Στ phro so well know the 


me lg 


th that event it were well for ‘Socrates to mere hed ἜΠΗ: for, 


2 


τό INTRODUCTION 


knowing what piety is, he must necessarily practise it; and therefore 
he would most naturally escape the prosecution of Meletus: What 
then is piety, and what is impiety? (4 E-5 D). 

Euthyphro then responds with the fst definition: “ Piety is doing 
as I am doing, prosecuting any one who is guilty of any great crime, 
whether he be your father or mother, or whoever he may be ; and not 
to prosecute him were impiety.” The conduct of Zeus and Cronus in 
punishing their fathers affords, in his judgment, a striking proof of the 
correctness of his answer (5 D-6 A). 

Socrates, who scruples to accept as true these tales of mythology, 
asks whether his failure to do so may not be the reason for his being 
considered guilty of impiety. Euthyphro assures him that he believes 
not only these stories, but others) also which are far more wonderful 
th atred and wars and much besides, that would 
fill Socrates with amazement. Socrates had rather defer the thrilling 
disclosures for the present, and follow up the question just now of so 
much consequence to him, what is piety? For, assuming the correct-_ 
ness of Euthyphro’s contention that his conduct is vious, tHaere aati an 
instance, and: there must be other pious actions; we require not ἃ 
special case, but a general definition (6 A-6 E). 

Euthyphro essays a second definition: “ Piety is that which is dear 
to the gods; that which is not dear to them is impious or unholy.” 
Socrates remarks that Euthyphro has avoided the errors in form of 
which he had previously complained, but that it remains to be seen 
whether the definition is true in substance. The pious and the impious 
are diametrically opposed one to the other. ‘That which is dear to 
the gods is pious, that which is not dear to them is impious. But 
Euthyphro has said that there are dissensions among the gods, and 
these quarrels must arise from differences of opinion. On what sub- 
‘jects? Not about number or weight; for such differences may be 
decided by referring to an easy test. These quarrels must have to do 
with such questions as those relating to right and wrong, which cannot 
be so readily adjudicated. Hence, as gods and men love that which 
they deem noble and just and hate the opposite, the gods may very 
likely be at variance here, some loving an action that others hate. It 
would not be surprising, therefore, if in prosecuting his father Buthy- 











πὶ 


[ INTRODUCTION 17 


4 phro should be doing that which is agreeable to Zeus, but disagreeable 
to Cronus ; ; and thus the pious_and_ the. impious, instead of pel 


to the definition, which Euthyphro willingly ee de Bee is_ that 
which αὐ the gods love; and the contrary, that which a// the gods 
~ hate, is impious” (6 E- -9 FE). 

The second definition, thus amended, should be subjected to care- 
ful scrutiny. In order to test it Socrates propounds a significant ques- 
tion: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious; or is it 
pious because it_is loved by the gods?” Euthyphro is sorely per- 
plexed, and Socrates undertakes to elucidate the problem by giving 
‘an illustration. It is a question of cause and effect, whieh terms are 
roughly identified with an act (=cause) and the resultant state 
(= effect). It is shown that the state does not precede the act, but 
follows it. By a series of substitutions of terms in admitted equa- 
tions, it is inferred that the pious is loved by the gods because it is 
Pious. The fact that the gods love piety dodes not, “therefore, add 
anything to our knowledge of the nature of_piety; and Socrates 
informs Euthyphro that, in defining piety as that which is loved by 
the © gods, he has drawn attention to an accidental attribute ES than 
to the essence of the c concept (9 E-11r B). 

When Socrates exhorts him to renew the attempt, Euthyphro 
acknowledges his confusion, and complains that the argument wanders 
about, leaving its moorings. Socrates then, as Euthyphro despairs of 
his own powers, undertakes to guide the inquiry. He begins by ask- 
ing the question, “Is not all that is pious necessarily right?” Yes. 
“Ts, then, all that is right also pious? Or, is it indeed true that all that 
is pious is right, whereas the converse proposition is not true, viz. that 
all that is right is pious? And is one gpl of that which is right pious, 
and is another part something else?” Euthyphro does not quite grasp 
the question. Socrates then gives him an elementary course in defin- 
‘ing terms by referring a species to a genus, illustrating the procedure 
by showing the relation between the concepts “reverence” and ᾽ν 

fear.” ~ Euthyphro then concedes that “the right” is the genus and \ 
ious” the species ; and, as there ᾿ other species, Euthyphro 


——— 
EUTHYPHRO — 2 
ay At κα ᾿ 







ῳ 


18 INTRODUCTION 


is led to submit a ¢hird definition : “That part of the right which a¢fends- 
to the gods is pious ; but the part that a¢fends fo men constitutes the 
remainder of the right” (11 B-12 E), 

“ Good,” says Socrates; “but what do you mean by éendance ? 
Surely you do not use the word as you would in speaking, say, of 
horses. For tendance has for its object the benefit and improvement 
of that which is tended.” Euthyphro grants that piety does not im- 
prove the gods, and therefore interprets his definition as having in 
view such attention as servants bestow upon their masters. Socrates 
then styles it “‘ ministration to the gods.” Immediately there is raised 
a further question: What end do the gods seek to accomplish through 
the ministrations of men? Medicine ministers to the restoration of 
health, shipbuilding to the building of ships; but to what end does 
piety avail? ‘Many and fair,” says Euthyphro, “are the objects 
which the gods effect by the ministrations of men.” — “ Yes,” replies 
Socrates ; “that may also be said of husbandry, for example, which, 
however, aims chiefly at producing food from the soil, and of general- 
ship, which looks chiefly to victory in warfare. In like manner, I 
should like to know the chief end which the gods have in view in em- 
ploying men’s service.” — “ It were a rather long task to learn all about 
so great a matter,” replies Euthyphro, and therewith returns to the 
commonplace view of daily life. “I should rather say that if 
one knows how to gratify the gods in word and deed, by prayer and 
sacrifice, such conduct is pious, and proves the salvation of private 
homes and commonwealths ; whereas the reverse of that which is 
gratifying, is impious, and overturns and ruins everything” (12 E-— 
sl Bi) Ys 

“You might have answered my question in fewer words,” Socrates 
rejoins ; ‘‘ but you turned away precisely when you had reached the 
point. But as the questioner must follow where the answer leads, 
I must content myself with what you offer. Your fourth definition 
then, as I gather, is to the effect that piety is the science of prayer 
and sacrifice ; that is to say, of asking and giving to the gods.” This 
would make of it a science of commerce between gods and men. 
Unless the gods derive some benefit from the transaction, man must 
have the advantage of them in the bargaining ; for we receive all true|) 





4 


INTRODUCTION 21 


j blessings at their hands. Euthyphro explains that the gods reiquiry 


honor alone from men. But honor, as Socrates remarks, is agffords 
ble and dear to the gods. Hence, piety once more appears, on‘tion, 
view, to be that which is agreeable to the gods, —a statement ΜΝ ἢ ἦναι 
was dismissed before. Once more the argument is walking awayr, 
The two positions are incompatible. Either we were not right before, 
or else, if we were, we are now in error. Hence we must resume our 
inquiry afresh and ask, What is piety ὃ 

But Euthyphro will have no more of it. He is in haste to depart, 
and Socrates cannot prevail upon him to stay. ‘Thereupon Socrates 
gives utterance to his disappointment at not being able to learn what 
piety is, so that he might clear himself of the charge brought by 
Meletus (14 B-16 A). 


§s, THE PLACE OF THE ZEUTHYPHRO IN THE ECONOMY OF PLATO'S WORKS 


Dramatically, the position proper to the Hwtyphro is between the 
Theaetetus and the Apology. At the close of the former dialogue 
Socrates says he must go to the court of the King Archon to answer 
the charge of Meletus. At the beginning of the Ew¢hyphro we find 
him there meeting the seer. His business is to take the initial steps 
of the trial which is to call forth his Afodogy. It was evidently this 
fact that led Aristophanes of Byzantium (cf. Laert. Diog. 3. 62) to 
place the Zuthyphro between the Zheaetetus and the Apology in his 
fourth trilogy, and Thrasyllus (cf. Laert. Diog. 3. 58) so to arrange his 
first tetralogy as to make the Luthyphro precede the Afology, Crivo, 
and Phaedo. Obviously, if one considers its dramatic setting and the 
argument as it has been sketched, our dialogue must be in some way 
closely related to the Apology ; but scholars appear to have bestowed 
upon this question much less attention than it deserves. 

The apologetic strain in the Zuthyphro has been noted ever since 


the time of Schlciermacher, and of course its outward relation to the 


trial of Socrates is teo evident to escape notice. But most scholars 
have thought that the 4.‘/vphro was written at a time when the threat 


of bringing Socrates to trial was first made, before his friends fully 


realized the seriousness of Lis danger. This view finds its chief sup- 
port in the difference in the emotional tone with which Plato refers to 


18 INTRODUCTION 


is lecial of Socrates in the Hwthyphro as compared, for example, with 
tothirorgias. But this fact may be accounted for equally well on 
remner hypothesis. Grote has already refuted this view; but we 

jl soon see that it becomes wholly untenable when the real relation 
‘etween the Euthyphro and the Afology is perceived. 

Let us first recall to mind that in the indictment brought against 
him Socrates was charged chiefly with irreligion and impiety. All the 
other counts specified were subordinated and reduced to this. How- 
ever faulty the plea of the Apology may be, when considered from the 
legal point of view, Socrates, unquestionably, in his defense, puts forth 
every effort to meet this charge. He does not confine his argument 
to a rebuttal of the evidence presented by the prosecution ; he en- 
deavors to establish directly and by positive proof that his mode of 
life is not only passively conformable to the laws and religious observ- 
ances of the state, but that it is aggressively pious and has received 
the signal approval of heaven. He refers to the oracle given by the 
Delphian Apollo in response to the question of his devoted Chaerephon, 
and is at especial pains to prove that he bears a commission to live 
and labor as he does, a commission expressly given by the god who 
reigned supreme in the hearts of the religious Greeks of that day. And 
it is this life of aggressive piety that he fondly calls “his ministration 
to the god” (τὴν ἐμὴν τῷ θεῷ ὑπηρεσίαν, Afol. 30 A). ; 

In recent years a principle governing the interpretation of the dia- 
logues of Plato has obtained among scholars almost universal recogni- 
tion. It may be thus stated: In determining the positive doctrine 
which Plato desired the reader to infer from the argument of any 
dialogue, we must take for our point of departure the positions taken 
and left finally unrefuted. If now we address ourselves to the Ewthy- 
phro, we perceive that the third of the four definitions propounded 
was not refuted. On the contrary, Socrates called attention to it in 
the most dramatic way. When Euthyphro loses courage after his 
second definition has proved untenable, Socrates essays to guide the 
inquiry and leads up directly to the conclusion. But Euthyphro, who 
has defined piety as ministration to the, gods, fails to answer the 
important question, to what end the gocs direct the ministrations of 
men. ‘Then Socrates rebukes him for taking refuge in a commonplace 

; 
{ 


4 





- 


INTRODUCTION 21 


instead of meeting the point upon which the success of the inquiry 
depends. All this conspires to prove that the third definition affords 
the key to the meaning of the dialogue. This, then, is the definition, 
12 E: τοῦτο τοίνυν ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ, ὦ Σώκρατες, TO μέρος τοῦ δικαίου εἶναι 
εὐσεβές τε καὶ ὅσιον, τὸ περὶ τὴν τῶν θεῶν θεραπείαν. Socrates, however, 
draws attention to the vagueness of the term θεραπεία and Kuthyphro 
substitutes ὑπηρετική for it. Later on (14 D) Socrates refers to it as 
αὕτη ἡ ὑπηρεσία τοῖς θεοῖς. 

If now one returns, with this definition in mind, to the dfofogy, one 
cannot but be struck by the phraseology in which Socrates there voices 
most forcibly the conviction on which he bases his claim to innocence 
and piety (30 A): ταῦτα yap κελεύει ὁ θεός, εὖ ἴστε, Kal ἐγὼ οἴομαι οὐδέν 
πω ὑμῖν μεῖζον ἀγαθὸν γενέσθαι ἐν τῇ πόλει ἢ τὴν ἐμὴν τῴ θεῴ ὑπηρεσίαν. 
It should now be clear that Plato wrote the Lwthyphro after the 
Apology, with a view to giving a theoretical statement of that which 
was merely implicit in the defense of Socrates. 

Since, however, the date of the Afo/ogy cannot be definitely fixed, 
we thus gain only a relative “rminus post quem. Attention has re- 
cently been directed afresh to a fact that may lead to somewhat more 
specific results. _ Euthyphro’s indictment of his father is dramatically 
made contemporary with the trial of Socrates. Now the nature of this 
indictment was such that it must have been brought, if at all, almost 
immediately after the commission of the manslaughter with which his 
father was charged. But, as Euthyphro’s father was presumably a cle- 
ruch on the island of Naxus, the alleged crime must have been com- 
mitted at least four or five years earlier, since, with the loss of all the 
Athenian colonies in 404 B.c., the cleruchs also would be dispossessed. 
We have here, therefore, one of Plato’s familiar anachronisms, ad- 
mitted for dramatic effect. The anachronism would be all the greater 
if, as Bergk conjectured, Eupolis, in his comedy entitled ΤΠΙροσπάλτιοι, 

A satirized the litigious disposition of Euthyphro. The dramatic 

fication of this disregard of time is sufficiently apparent, but in 

ens 456 the anachronism remains, and compels us to date our dia- 

goat considerable number of years after the trial of Socrates. 

ολιϑοῖδί be done, we destroy the artistic structure by emphasizing 
uth of detail. 


61 


22 INTRODUCTION 


The same general result is reached if we consider the tone in which 
Plato, in the Aw/hyphro, touches upon the trial of Socrates. 50 
marked is the difference in this regard that it is quite probable that 
the Gorgias was written before our dialogue. Again, the reference of 
the ὅσιον to the δίκαιον and so to the later fourfold category of virtues, 
suggests that Plato had definitely advanced beyond the semipopular 
enumeration of five virtues in the Profagoras (349 B). It seems im- 
possible to assign the Hwthyphro a place after the Republic; but cer- 
tain critics have pretended to find the text for the homily in our 
discourse in the famous utterance on the immoralities attributed to the 
gods, which is to be found in Repudiic, 378 A B. Other critics have 
dated the Zuthyphro after the first books of the Repudic. On the 
whole it seems wiser at the present stage of the inquiry to refrain from 
definite conclusions. So far as the study of style and the tabulation of 
certain characteristic particles have proceeded, they support the gen- 
eral view here presented. The “uthyphro is most intimately linked 
with such dialogues as Gorgias, Protagoras, Symposium, Charmides, 
Laches, Lysis, and the Republic. 


86. THE IMPORT OF THE EUTHYPHRO 


The value of the dialogue has sometimes been called in question. 
It may therefore be proper here to consider what contribution it 
- makes to philosophical problems. The upshot of the argument is, as 
we have seen, that piety is man’s ministration to God directed to the 
accomplishment of some object supremely great and fair. ‘This state- 
ment is open, in the abstract, to two interpretations: one from the 
point of view of Plato, the other on the basis of Socrates’ own concep- 
tions. As we turn to the Apology for some indication of the glorious 
object which man by his obedient service assists God in realizing, we 
think naturally of the impressive words to which we have already re- Ὁ 
ferred (Apol. 30 A): ταῦτα yap κελεύει ὃ θεός, εὖ ἴστε, καὶ ἐγὼ οἴομαι 
οὐδέν πω ὑμῖν μεῖζον ἀγαθὸν γενέσθαι ἐν τῇ πόλει ἢ τὴν ἐμὴν τῷ θεῷ 
ὑπηρεσίαν. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἄλλο πράττων ἐγὼ περιέρχομαι ἢ πείθων ὑμῶν καὶ 
νεωτέρους καὶ πρεσβυτέρους μήτε σωμάτων ἐπιμελεῖσθαι μήτε χρημάτων 
πρότερον μηδὲ οὕτω σφόδρα ὡς τῆς ψυχῆς ὅπως ὡς ἀρίστη ἔσται. We are 
familiar with Socrates’ cure of souls; it is his mission to clarify men’s 





INTRODUCTION 23 


passions and to right their lives by ridding their minds of false concep- 
tions and by assisting the birth of true insight. This is for him the 
Kingdom of God for which he was called to prepare the way. ‘This is 
the activity which Plato ascribes to Socrates in the Gorgias, 521 D, 
and pronounces to be the only exercise of true statesmanship to be 
witnessed at Athens. And at the close of that dialogue the myth 
clearly shows that this statesmanship is identical with the observance 
of the perfect piety. ἢ = 

For Socrates, then, this is as far as we may safely pursue the matter. 
But we are now concerned with Plato, as the author of the Zwthyphro. 
The question as to the ἔργον (specific end) accomplished by the minis- 
trations of man, which Socrates raises in Huthyphro, 13 E, when con- 
sidered in its ultimate bearings, points unmistakably to the systematic 
development of Plato’s thought. The only answer to Socrates’ ques- 
tion is, therefore, that the ἔργον to be effected _by man’s service_of 
God is the realization of the Good, — not the realization of this or that 
particular good. What to Socrates could have meant no more than 
preparing the way for the Kingdom of God, to Plato, with his con- 
structive and legislative mind, meant a positive and definite attempt to 
lay the foundations and to establish the government of the City of 
God. For the Good, with Plato, is essentially the ideal of a life ina 
perfect social system, conducted on principles of true insight into the 
nature and meaning of things. Such an attempt was made in an ideal 
way in the Republic and the Zaws, in a practical way in his visits to 
Syracuse. 

Now, according to Plato, philosophy is the endeavor to realize the 
Good in all things. Philosophy and religion join in the demand that 
we flee from the evil and take refuge with the Good. We must ap- 
proximate to Deity as nearly as we may, and this approximation is 
brought about by justice, piety, and insight ( Zheae/e/ws, 176 A B). 
This perfect philosophic life we have learned from the Republic to call 
the life of righteousness, the life of virtue in itself complete. In the 
Luthyphro piety is singled out as a special aspect of that philosophic 
and virtuous life ; the ὅσιον is defined as μέρος δικαίου τὸ περὶ τὴν τῶν 
θεῶν θεραπείαν. We may say, then, that the Good is a power that 
operates to its.own realization in the social world through the insight- 


Ra 


24 INTRODUCTION 


guided efforts of mankind. ‘That it is a true man’s function to bear ~ 
his part in this self-realization of the Good is, in a word, the ethical 
import of the Republic. The Luthyphro adds the conscious reference 
to Deity, the thought that this philosophic life is a service in a per- 
sonal relation as a willed cooperation. ‘Taking due account of the 
formal peculiarities of the Greek terminology, the definition thus 
reached may be paraphrased somewhat as follows, “ Religion is the 
intelligent and conscientious endeavor of man to further the Good in 
human society, as under God.’ The Good and God are not here 
expressly identified ; but the line of distinction between these two 
conceptions was in Plato’s thought almost if not quite effaced. If we 
take account of this circumstance and make explicit the implication of 
the argument, we may say that religion is the devoted service of the 
_ Ideal, consciously conceived as God. We thus attain to a thought 
which, while undeniably lying in the direct path of Platonic philoso- 
phizing, has not been superseded by any pronouncement of modern 
philosophers of religion. 

The result thus stated is in substantial accord with the definition of 
piety extracted from Plato by Bonitz, Platonische Studien, p. 234, “If 
we thus supplement with Platonic thoughts our dialogue at the point 
where it is characteristically interrupted, we reach the definition that 
piety is nothing but perfect morality, only in such sort that man is 
conscious of being therein the ministering instrument of the divine 
activity.” Not quite so satisfactory is the statement of Schanz, Zin- 
leitung, p. 13, “ He is pious, who accommodates his will to the divine 
will, who becomes an instrument of the divine will.” Here there is a 
possible difference between the Good and the divine will, whereas 
Socrates emphasizes the thought that piety is not dependent for its 
essential nature on the pleasure or the will of Deity. 

Although most of the above suggestions of doctrine were derived 
from other works of Plato, they are not only consistent with, but even 
called forth by, hints contained in the Hu¢hvphro. In the first place, 
Socrates declines to credit unworthy tales of the gods (6 A, 6 D). 
Again, he implies that we must conceive of them as being virtually 
agreed on moral questions, and suggests that man cannot do aught to 
make them better. Finally, he asserts that all good and perfect gifts 





INTRODUCTION (25 
come from them (15 A). All of which hints unmistakably at the 
Platonic doctrine that God is good (Δ ε. 379 B ff.) and that, because 
he is good, he does only that which is good (Zim. 29 E). 

We thus perceive that there are made in the Lu/hyphro certain 
positive suggestions of great significance for the theory of religion. 
But there are other thoughts, positive as well as negative, scattered 
throughout the dialogue, which are deserving of consideration. Atten- 
tion has been already directed to the first attempt at a definition of 
piety, as that which Euthyphro is doing. Whatever may be our view 
of the evolution of religion, so much at least is plain: the commands 
of religion come originally as specific injunctions, “thou shalt,” or 
“thou shalt not.” Broad principles of action, such as Jesus’ com- 
mandment to love God and one’s neighbor, invariably come late. 
Hence the religious conscience is clear on details, but suffers consider- 
able latitude in their formulation. The case of Euthyphro is typical 
for all time. Moreover, in this particular case, he illustrates ‘a danger 
to which all scripture (if we may so call the Greek mythology) is 
exposed. The text to which he appeals in support of his treatment of 
his father was not designed to serve such a purpose. Man, in an 
unreflecting state, expresses his own moral standards in the tales he 
tells. If he conceives a new truth he invents a new tale. Only when 
he becomes reflective does he criticise the old one. At any time the 
public conscience is likely to be too laxly disciplined to respond 
unitedly to a new appeal; hence in all ages the conflict of ideals and 
the variety of applications of religious sanctions must be marked. 

The disagreement ‘between Euthyphro and his kindred on the one 

hand and Socrates on the other, as to his treatment of his father, is a 
case in point. His belief in the dissensions among the gods, on which 
he bases his action, is anothér. Euthyphro is simply the unreflecting 
᾿ς teligionist, who is unaffectedly orthodox. His only pride is in his su- 
 perior knowledge. But Socrates, who conceives of the gods first of all 
as good, cannot help applying to them his ideal of goodness, and by 
reflection comes to disbelieve the common creed in the interest of the 

᾿ς diviné nature. ~ He shows that the dissidence in ethical judgments, so 
ΠΝ -.:ὅ. of polytheism, must give place to unanimity, at least if 
Wevare to have a rational view of piety. This is only one illustration 





26 INTRODUCTION 


of the thousand ways in which the growth of the ethical ideal and the 
moralization of religion, which was in progress in the days of Socrates 
and Plato, prepared the way for a purer monotheism. 

Euthyphro’s second definition also deserves attention. It pro- 
nounces that pious which is agreeable to the gods. There can be no 
doubt that the Greeks, almost to a man, would have adopted this view. 
It is the characteristic expression of any revealed religion. That virtue 
is conformity to the will of God, — varied in phrase, but identical in in- 
tention, —all systems of Christian ethics declare. And there can be 
no serious objection to the statement if two points are duly guarded : 
first, God must be conceived to be essentially rational and free of 
caprice, and, secondly, there must not be left any possibility of a di- 
vergence between the rational Good and the will of God. These con- 
ceptions were not current in Plato’s time ; hence, he could not accept 
the definition. 

His higher view, moreover, was not to be attained simply by clari- 
fying the notions already entertained by the people. Had this been 
possible, Plato’s contribution to the history of religious thought would 
not have been so original, although its value to his people would per- 
haps have been enhanced. When Socrates assumes the conduct of 
the discourse (11 E), he is made to direct it to a consideration of the 
relation between the concepts ὅσιον and δίκαιον, in which Euthyphro 
concedes that the former is subordinate (as species to genus) to the 
latter. ‘There can hardly be a serious doubt that to the popular view 
these concepts were entirely coordinate ; and, indeed, Plato himself, 
in the Profagoras and the Gorgias, when speaking in the popular lan- 
guage, so regarded them. This fact, however, only serves to show 
more clearly the originality of Plato’s thought; for the conception is 
thus set into relation with the fourfold virtue comprehended under 
δικαιοσύνη, according to the scheme of the Repwb/ic. This omission of 
ὁσιότης from the list, as an independent and coérdinate virtue, does 
not, however, betoken a diminution of interest in religion; it rather 
marks the elevation of all man’s conduct to a higher plane, on which 

_all duty is seen in the light of a service of God. 

The service of the gods, which constitutes the essence of virtue in 

general and of piety in particular, is not however a service of ca- 





INTRODUCTION 27 


pricious masters, as we have already seen, since their wills are sup- 
posed, to be at one. But Plato goes still farther. In a discussion of 
some subtlety (9 E ff.), Socrates leads up to the thought that the pious 
is pious not because it is agreeable to the gods, — though he does not 
question that it is agreeable to them, — but, contrariwise, is agreeable 
to the gods because it is pious. Whatever may be our judgment upon 
the argument that conducts us to this conclusion, there can be πὸ. 
doubt as to the significance of the conclusion itself. It plainly asserts) 
the autonomy of the human spirit even in matters of religion. In} 
other words, it means that the content of our moral creed, — the de- | 
termination of what is or is not duty, — does not depend upon the will | 
or the pleasure of God. Duty is constituted duty by the spirit — 
human or divine —that apprehends it as that which is ultimately and 
absolutely Good. The human spirit is made to evolve its own moral 
ideal, which is z/so facto supposed to appeal to an approving Deity. 
The coincidence of man’s ideal with the will of God thereby becomes 
the ultimate postulate of the moral life. τῷ 

Apart from these important contributions to religious thought, the 
Luthyphro possesses also a certain logical interest. From all of Plato’s 
works it becomes clearly apparent that there was in his day not even a 
beginning of technical logic except as he himself laid the foundations. 
Hence his dialogues contain much that to us seems extremely ele- 
mentary. In the Luv/hyphro, the following suggestions toward a logical 
theory are offered: 1. Socrates shows that an example is not a defi- 
nition (6 D). 2. In two instances (8 A f. and 13 A f.) he teaches 
Euthyphro that ambiguities of expression are to be excluded from the 
definition. 3. The categories of antecedent and consequent, cause and 
effect, are noted and employed (10 A ἢ). 4. In the same connection 
the categories of the active and the fassive are indicated, and the 
difference between predication that is merely temporary and predica- 
tion that is permanent is brought out, pointing the distinction between 
accident and essence. 5. Socrates illustrates the method of defining 
terms per genus et differentiam. 

After completing this survey of the Luwthvphro, we may safely say in 
conclusion that none of the briefer Platonic dialogues can be compared 
with it for the value of its suggestions toward philosophical theory. 


ABBREV TATIONS 


B. = Babbitt’s Grammar of Attic and Ionic Greek, 1901. 

G. = Goodwin’s Greek Grammar (revised edition), 1893. 

GL. = Gildersleeve’s Zatin Grammar (third edition, revised and en- 
larged), 1894. 

GMT. = Goodwin’s Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb 
(enlarged edition), 1890. 

GS. = Gildersleeve’s Syntax of Classical Greek, 1901. 

HA. = Hadley’s Greek Grammar (revised by Allen), 1884. 

RD. = Riddell’s Digest of Platonic [dioms, in the Appendix to his edition 
of Plato’s Apology, 1877. 


28 


5 


ETOT®PON 


[ἢ περὶ ὁσίου, πειραστικος] 


TA TOY AIAAOLOY ITPOSOITA 


EYOY®PON, 


SOKPATHS 


~ 
ν »- 


Ι. EYO. Τί νεώτερον, ὦ Σώκρατες, γέγονεν, ὅτι A 


σὺ τὰς ἐν Λυκείῳ καταλιπὼν διατριβὰς ἐνθάδε νῦν 


I. τ. ΕὙΘΥΦΡΩΝ [7H περὶ 
ὁσίου, πειραστικός]: the dialogues 
of Plato, with few exceptions, de- 
rive their titles from the names of 


the chief interlocutors, apart from 


Socrates, ¢.g. Euthyphro in our 
dialogue. The sub-title, ἢ περὶ 
ὁσίου, was probably added by the 
scholars of Alexandria, although 
Thrasyllus, who lived at Rome 
in the time of Augustus and 


Tiberius, and arranged the works 


of Plato in tetralogies, seems to 
have thought that they originated 
with Plato. 2. πειραστικός = 
tentative assigns the dialogue 
its place in a scheme, according 
to which the dialogues of inves- 
tigation (ζητητικοί) are either 
obstetric (μαιευτικοί), tentative 
(πειραστικοί), probative (ἐνδει- 
KTiKol ), or refutative (ἀνατρεπτι- 
κοί). The ‘tentative’ dialogues 
were valued for their capacity to 
rid the mind of false notions by 
disproof and purification (cp. τὸ 


ἐλεγκτικὸν καὶ τὸ λεγόμενον 


καθαρτικόν. Albinus, Zzsagoge, 
p- t50, in Hermann’s /Vazo, Vol. 
VI.). The other ‘tentative’ 
dialogues are the Charmides, 
Meno, and Jon. See Grote’s 
Plato, 1.. pp. 158-161. 

The scene of the dialogue is 
in. or before, the porch of the 
King Archon. 

5. τί νεώτερον: HA. 649. 
Up to his seventieth year Socra- 
tes had not been a party to a 
lawsuit (Afol. 17 Ὁ); hence 
Euthyphro’s surprise at finding 
him here. 6. τὰς ἐν Λυκείῳ... 
διατριβάς: ἐν Λυκ. attrib., cp. 
HA. 666a; G. 952,1; B. 451,1. 
The Λύκειον was a famous gym- 
nasium situated on the right bank 
of the Ilisus in the precincts of 
᾿Απόλλων Λύκειος, which lay 
just outside and east of Athens. 
Here Socrates loved to resort, 
and here Aristotle subsequently 
founded his school. The scene 
of the Zyszs and of the Euthyd. 
is laid here, and hither Socrates 


29 


10 


2A 


30 


ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ 


[2A 


’ A Ν ΄-“ 4 72 5 , 
διατρίβεις περὶ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως στοάν ; οὐ yap που 
καὶ σοί γε δίκη τις οὖσα τυγχάνει πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα 


ν ta 
ὥσπερ ἐμοί. 


ΣΩ. Οὔτοι δὴ ᾿Αθηναῖοί γε, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, δίκην 
αὐτὴν καλοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ γραφήν. | 

ΕΥΘ. Τί dys; γραφὴν σέ τις, ὡς ἔοικε, | yeypa- 
TTAL* οὐ γὰρ ἐκεῖνό γε καταγνώσομαι, ὡς σὺ ἕτερον. 


betakes himself from the feast 


of Agathon, Sywp. 223 1). δια- 
τριβαί here means only his 


haunts ; Cp., too, διατρίβεις in 1. 7. 
It is not said that Socrates is 
engaging here in philosophical 
disputations, which is freq. the 
sense of these terms; for the 
dialogue gives no hint of other 
auditors of the discourse, and 
Euthyphro would have no occa- 
sion for surprise if Socrates had 
changed only the scene of his 
pursuits. Socrates is evidently 
bent on business. On the δια- 
τριβή as a literary form, see 
Hirzel, Der Dialog, 1., p. 369 ff. 

7. τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως στοάν: 
the ἄρχων βασιλείς was the 
second of the nine Athenian 
Archons. He had charge of 
state matters involving religion, 
such as the mysteries, the Λήναια, 
and all gymnastic contests. He 
had jurisdiction in all cases con- 
cerned with impiety and: blood- 
guiltiness. His porch, or court, 
was at the west end of the ἀγορά, 
—the first on the right on en- 
tering the market-place from the 
Ceramicus. A στοά was prop- 
erly a colonnade; the στοὰ Ba- 
σίλειος appears to have had 


three rows of columns, and is 
supposed to have exerted a strong 
influence on the architecture of 
the Roman and Christian basil- 
ica.—ov γάρ mov KTA.: ‘you 
also, I dare say (που), do not 
have,’ etc. For ov yap 7ov... 
ye. cp. 4 B, 13 A, 14 E, and οὐ yap 
mov, 7E. On ota, see HA. 984; 
G. 1586; B. 660, N. 8. ampéds: 
apud. 9g. ὥσπερ ἐμοί: the case 
of Euthyphro was a δίκη φόνου. 
and as such came under the ju- 
risdiction of the βασιλεύς. Note 
his eagerness to tell about his 
owncase. Cp.3E. το. οὔτοι δὴ 
Ye... γραφήν : γε strengthens 
the neg., not ᾿Αθηναῖοι. Athenian 
jurisprudence recognized two dis- 
tinct classes of actions at law: 
(1) ἀγὼν ἴδιος, δίκη ἰδία, or 
simply δίκη. α private action; 
(2) ἀγὼν δημόσιος. δίκη δημοσία. 
or γραφή, a public prosecution. 
The action laid against Socrates 
was of the latter sort. Roughly, 
the two classes correspond to 
civil and criminal trials in our 
own courts. 12. γραφὴν. 
γέγραπται : for γραφήν. HA. 715 ; 
G. IOsI (ep. 1925): Ba 3ator 
σε HA. 725; δ. 1076> Be 310 
the pron. is emphatic. 13. od γὰρ 


2A 


B 





15 


a. . 


: gen., Lys. 


certainly not.’ 


2B] 


302. Οὐ yap οὖν. 


EY. ᾿Αλλὰ σὲ ἄλλος ; 


ΣΩ. Πάνυ γε. 
EY®. Tis οὗτος ; 


ΕΥ̓ΘΥΦΡΩΝ 


31 


ΣΩ. Οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸς πάνυ τι γιγνώσκω, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, 


Oe τῶν δήμων Πιτθεύς, 


. . ἕτερον: ‘for I shall not 
think so ill of you as to suppose 
that you have indicted another.’ 
We should have expected σοῦ 
with καταγνώσομαι, as in Men. 
76C, but the clause ὡς σὺ ἕτερον 
renders it unnecessary. For the 
regular constr., cp. Ar. £g. 46; 
Lys. 4. 14; for the rarer second 
17 0. ὑρ' Lhuc: 2: 
16. Here ἕτερον = ἄλλον (cp. 
ἀλλὰ σὲ ἄλλος. in 1. 15),see RD. 
§ 45; B. 492. With ἕτερον sup- 
ply γραφὴν γέγραψαι. 

14. οὐ γὰρ οὖν: ‘why, no, — 
15. ἀλλὰ σὲ ἄλ- 
Nos: sc. γραφὴν γέγραπται. The 
question, being quite unneces- 
sary, marks Euthyphro’s surprise. 
Above we had ὡς ov ἕτερον. 
16. πάνυ ye: expresses entire 
assent; in like manner, καὶ πάνυ 
ye and πάνυ μὲν οὖν. 18. οὐδ᾽ 
αὐτὸς πάνυ τι γιγνώσκω : 7) self 
am not very well acquainted with 
the man.— 0d πάνυ τι -- γιοΐ Guite ; 
MA. 702 Ὁ; G. ro16; RD. 
§ 139. The indef. pron. τίς; 
when joined with adjs., indef. 
numerals, and advs., serves to 
make distinct the idea conveyed 
by these words, rendering them 


Ἀ » ΄ὕἹ , , ΄ \ > ΄ 
τον ἄνδρα" νέος vee TLS Be φαίνεται και ἀγνως" 
20 ὀνομάζουσι μέντοι αὐτόν, ὡς ἐγῴμαι. Μέλητον. 


» 
εστι 


εἰ τινα νῷ ἔχεις Πιτθέα 


now more, now less, emphatic, 2B 


acc. to the sense or the connec- 
tion. 19. ἀγνώς: pass. In this 
expression, as well as in the fore- 
going νέος τις and the following 
ὡς ἐγῴμαι, Socrates shows his 
contemptuous indifference to his 
chief accuser, Meletus, who was 
supported by Anytus and Lyco 
(his συνήγοροι). See Afol. 
23 E. Of Meletus little is known 
but what we learn from the Zzth. 
and the Afol., it being difficult 
or impossible to identify him 
with any one of the men of the 
same name known through other 
sources. Some have thought 
him either the poet Meletus (Ar. 
Ran. 1302, cp. Apol. 23 E) or 
that poet’s son. Anytus, how- 
ever, was one of the most influ- 
ential men in the restored De- 
mocracy, being a colleague of 
Thrasybulus (Isocr. 18. 23). 
In his hostility to the Sophists 
he wrongfully included Socrates, 
and probably did much toward 
his condemnation. According to 
A fol. 23 E, Lyco was an orator, 
and as such he doubtless con- 
tributed his professional services 


to the prosecution. 21. τῶν 


MAATONOS [2B 


32 
, eo Zz \ 5 , > , 
Μέλητον οἷον τετανότριχα Kal οὐ πάνυ εὐγένειον, 
ἐπίγρυπον δέ. 
ΕΥΘ. Οὐκ ἐννοῶ, ὦ Σώκρατες: ἀλλὰ δὴ τίνα 
25 γραφήν oe | γέγραπται; 
ν 5» 5 A 3, La ἣν A 
30. Ἥντινα ; οὐκ ἀγεννῆ, ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ: TO yap 
νέον ὄντα τοσοῦτον πρᾶγμα ἐγνωκέναι οὐ φαῦλόν 
ἐστιν: ἐκεῖνος γάρ, ὥς φησιν, οἶδε, τίνα τρόπον 
ε , ’ XN 4 ε » 
οἱ νέοι διαφθείρονται καὶ τίνες οἱ διαφθείροντες 
30 αὐτούς. καὶ κινδυνεύει σοφός τις εἶναι" καὶ τὴν 
5 Ν be) 4, ΝΥ e a x e 
ἐμὴν ἀμαθίαν κατιδὼν ws διαφθείροντος τοὺς HA 


2B δήμων: partitive gen., closely ἢ15 character and nurture,’ ironi- 


akin to the chorographic. Schanz 
makes δῆμος = δημότης. The 
deme Πίτθος belonged to the 
tribe Kexpozis, and (acc. to Bur- 
sian, Geogr. von Griech., 1. 345) 
probably lay a little northeast of 
Athens, between Palleneand Gar- 
gettus. 21. νῷ ἔχεις : remember ; 
but ἐν νῷ ἔχειν c. inf. = purpose. 

22. οἷον : by attraction (HA. 
997; 1002; .G. 1036) for τοιοῦτον, 
οἷος τετανόθριξ ἐστί, KTA.— τετα- 
νότριχα: ‘with long, straight 
hair.’ — οὐ πάνυ εὐγένειον : ‘with 
none too gooda beard.’ 23. ἐπί- 
yputov: z.c. Roman-nosed. The 
prep. ἐπι- seems to mean ‘slight- 
ly.’ Cp. ἐπίσιμος. ἐπίχαρις. etc. 
24. ἐννοῶ = νῷ exw. — ἀλλὰ δή: 
‘but, then.’ 26. ἥντινα : acc., in- 
stead of nom., retaining the case- 
form of the question; cp. Gorg. 


cal, as is all the praise of Meletus. 
—Toyap.. . ἐγνωκέναι : ‘for the 
fact that, young as he is, he has 
apprehended a matter of such 
magnitude. HA. 958 f.; G. 
1541 ff.; B. 637. 27. οὐ φαῦλον: 
‘no small thing Cp. Crat. 
390 D; in Symp. 213 C οὐ φαῦ- 
λον πρᾶγμα. See Frohberger 
on Lys. 10.2 (App.). 28. tive 
τρόπον: HA. 719 a; G. 1060; B. 
330. 29. οἱ νέοι διαφθείρονται : see 
Afpol.24.B: Σωκράτη φησὶν (sc. 
ὁ Μέλητος) ἀδικεῖν τούς τε νέους 
διαφθείροντα καὶ θεοὺς ovs ἡ 
πόλις νομίζει. οὐ νομίζοντα. ἕτερα 
δὲ δαιμόνια καινά. It is thus 
seen that Socrates is here glanc- 
ing at the phraseology of the 
formal accusation lodged against 
him. — ot διαφθείροντες: HA. 
966; G. 1560; B.650,1. 30. κιν- 


449 E: περὶ λόγους. . . ποίους δυνεύει : here = δοκεῖ, as freq. in 
τούτους, ὦ Topyia; When a_ Plato; cp. 8A, 11 A, D. The 


question is repeated by the one 
to whom it was addressed, it is 
regularly put into the indir. form ; 
hence ἥντινα. not τίνα. 26. οὐκ 
ἀγεννῆ : ‘one that speaks well for 


original sense has faded, and the 
verb makes a polite assertion. 
31. διαφθείροντος: agrees with 
ἐμοῦ, implicit in ἐμήν, HA. 691 ; 
G. 1001; B. 477, N. 





35 


2C 


3 A] 


EY@OY®PON 


33 


Pye ct 
κιώτας αὐτοῦ, ἔρχεται κατηγορήσων μου ὡς πρὸς 


μητέρα πρὸς τὴν πόλιν. 


\ / ΄, a 
Kat φαίνεταί μοι τῶν 


ἴω , Vv τι A 5 A , 5 

πολιτικῶν μόνος ἄρχεσθαι ὀρθῶς . ὀρθῶς yap | ἐστι 
τῶν νέων πρῶτον ἐπιμεληθῆναι, ὅπως ἔσονται ὅτι 
ΕἿΣ ο ἈΝ nw »" 
ἄριστοι, ὥσπερ γεωργὸν ἀγαθὸν τῶν νέων φυτῶν 
εἰκὸς πρῶτον ἐπιμεληθῆναι, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο καὶ τῶν 
» ἊΝ XN Ν i 4 » A Ν c “ 
ἄλλων - Kat δὴ καὶ Μέλητος ἴσως πρῶτον μὲν | ἡμᾶς 
3 \ “ , Ν , , 

-ἐκκαθαίρει τοὺς τῶν νέων τὰς βλάστας διαφθείροντας, 


32. αὐτοῦ: for position, see 
HA. 673 b. — ὡς πρὸς... πόλιν: 
usually, in Piato, when two objects 
are compared, in prepositional 
phrases the second prep. is omit- 
ted, if the comparison precedes 
the thing compared [cp. HA. 
1007; G. 1025]. Schanz cites 
Prot. 337 E, Theaet. 170 A, Rep. 


ea, 520 Τ᾿, 545 EF, Zim. 27 B, 


206 D. 


a 


81 B, 91 D, Legg. 905 B. But 
the prep. is repeated, as here, 
Rep. 440 D, 553 B, 573 E, 
Phaedo 82 E, τις B, Phaedr. 
255 D, 72m. 73 D, 86 A, Theaet. 
In Phaedo 67 D, and 
Tim. 79 A, the Ms. reading is in 
doubt. For the use of πρός. cp. 
below, 3 B, and Aol. 18 B: ἐμοῦ 
yap πολλοὶ κατήγοροι γεγόνασι 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς. The comparison of 
the state toa mother is common ; 
see Crito, passim, Rep. 414 FE, 
575 D, Aesch. Septem, 16 ff. 
33. τῶν πολιτικῶν : neut. How 
intensely ironical this passage 
is, may be seen by compari- 
son with Gorg. 521 D, where 
Plato, in similar terms, describes 
Socrates as the only true states- 
man. 34. ὀρθῶς γάρ ἐστιν : ‘this 
properly means first caring for 
EUTHYPHRO — 3 


the young.’ ὀρθῶς is repeated 
with emphasis in order to define it. 
35. TOV νεῶν. . . ἐπιμεληθῆναι, 
πῶς; HA. 742, 885; G. 1102, 
1372; B. 356,593. In the repeti- 
tion of ἐπιμεληθῆναι just before 
Μέλητος, there is clearly an inten- 
tional play on words, found also 
Afpol.25C,26B. Schanz( £zn/eit., 
p- I1) calls attention to the fol- 
lowing expressions, which serve 
to characterize Euthyphro as an 
etymologist: the distinction of 
δίκη and ypady, 2 A; ad’ Ἑστίας 
ἄρχεσθαι. 3 A; the puns on 
διώκω, 3 E, and ἕπομαι, 12 A; 
the point on ὁρᾶν and καθορᾶν, 
5 C; the paronomasia Δαιδάλου 


... TavraddAov, 11 D. See RD. 
§ 3232. 37. εἰκός : regularly fol- 
lowed by aor. inf. 38. καὶ δὴ 


kal: HA. 1042 c; B. 441, N. I. 
39. ἐκκαθαίρει : weeds ou/, continu- 
ing the metaphor suggested in 
ὥσπερ γεωργὸν ἀγαθόν and τὰς 
βλάστας.--- τῶν νέων τὰς βλάσ- 
τας: ‘those tender shoots, the 
young.’ If the text is sound, as 
it seems to be, τῶν νέων must be 
gen. of designation, HA. 729 g; 
G. 1086. The comparison and 
the thing compared are run to- 


D 


2C 


D 


ww 
ἊΣ 
> 


40 


34 


ὥς pyow: 


ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ 


[3A 


» ἴων “ ΄ “ 
ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο δῆλον ὅτι τῶν πρε- 


σβυτέρων ἐπιμεληθεὶς πλείστων καὶ μεγίστων ἀγαθῶν 
αἴτιος τῇ πόλει γενήσεται, ὥς γε τὸ εἰκὸς ξυμβῆναι 
ἐκ τοιαύτης ἀρχῆς ἀρξαμένῳ. 

II. ΕΥΘ. Βουλοίμην av, ὦ nee ἀλλ᾽ ὀρρω- 


δῶ, μὴ τοὐναντίον γένηται. 


ἀτεχνῶς γάρ μοι δοκεῖ 


5 Ly 11 / Ξ3Ξ, lal Ν / > 
ἀφ᾽ Ἑστίας ἄρχεσθαι κακουργεῖν τὴν πόλιν, ἐπιχει- 


ρῶν ἀδικεῖν σέ. 


, / , \ ae ? , 
καί μοι λέγε, TL καὶ ποιουντὰ σέ 


φησι διαφθείρειν τοὺς νέους ; | 


gether.: As often in Plato, constr. 
and diction are poetic, prob. in- 
tended to remind us that Mele- 
tus was a poet. Cp. Eur. 7764. 
1098: τέκνων . . . γλυκερὸν βλά- 
orn, Soph. O.7. 717. 

40. ὥς φησιν: ‘to quote his 
words” cp. below, 3.8, Iso: 
Not a real quotation, though it is 
intended to make it so appear; 
so also, 1]. 7, φησὶ yap pe ποιη- 
τὴν εἶναι θεῶν. Cp. ὡς 6 σὸς λό- 
γος, below, ὃ D, τὸ 10. --- ἔπειτα 


μετὰ τοῦτο: next thereafter. 


Note the pleonasm. — δῆλον 
ὅτι: clearly, WA. dosg.'1 ta: 
42. ws ye ἀρξαμένῳ: ‘if 


the natural result follows from 
such a beginning.’ τὸ εἰκός is 
subj.; often the art. is omitted 
ἈΠῸ εἰκὸς 15. pred. cp. 1 37; 
2D. The difference of constr. 
matters little to the thought. 

II. 2. ἀτεχνῶς : ‘actually.’ The 
word is almost confined in use 
to Plato and comedy, serving to 
introduce proverbs, metaphors, 
hyperbolic phrases, —in short, 
any expression not quite inevita- 
ble. In effect, therefore, it often 
asks pardon for using a strong 


expression which may not be 
quite dignified, somewhat as 
Engl. ‘as zt were.’ This may 
readily be seen by comparing 
such a collocation as that, ¢.g., in 
Afpol. 30 E, ἀτεχνῶς, εἰ καὶ ye- 
λοιότερον εἰπεῖν. Its sphere is 
colloquial. Here it introduces 
the proverb ἀφ᾽ “Εἰστίας ἄρχεσθαι, 
which suggests that Socrates was 
really the Holy of Holies in the 
Athenian state. In all sacrifi- 
cial libations a beginning was 
made, in order to begin prop- 
erly, with Hestia; for this god- 
dess, as the deified hearth, rep- 
resented the focal point of family 
and state. In Athens, as else- 
where, there was in the πρυτα- 
velov a κοινὴ ἑστία τῆς πόλεως, 
the center of the city’s religious 
life. On the proverb, see Ro- 
scher, Ausfiihrl. Lexicon der 


gricch. und rom. Mythologie, 1. 


1 ΒΡ. ZOLS ies eae 
λέγε: jest tell mie. 

of καί with imy. is common. 
-ττί καὶ ποιοῦντα: ‘what in 
the world does he charge you 
with doing to corrupt the young?” 
Cp. τί yap καὶ φήσομεν, below, 


καί μοι 
This use 





3 Β] 


ΕΥ̓ΘΥΦΡΩΝ 


35 


» > ΄ 9 > A 
30. “Atota, ὦ θαυμάσιε, ws οὕτω γ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι. 
Ν z XN > “ 
φησὶ γάρ με ποιητὴν εἶναι θεῶν, καὶ ὡς καινοὺς ποι- 
οὔντα θεούς, τοὺς δ᾽ ἀρχαίους οὐ νομίζο ἐγρά 
, πε Ύτοι ΡΧ v νομίζοντα, ἐγράψατο 
τούτων αὐτῶν ἕνεκα, ὡς φησιν. 


mA © B, and Xen. Hell. 3. 3. 11: 


τέλος αὐτὸν ἤροντο τί καὶ βουλό- 
μενος ταῦτα πράττοι, ‘for what 
conceivable purpose he did it.’ 
Here καί emphasizes and inten- 


sifies the question. Cp. RD. 
§ 132. 
6. ὦ θαυμάσιε: the Greek 


employs a great variety of forms 
of address, for many of which 
English equivalents are wanting. 
Perhaps the most common are 
ὦ φίλε, ὦ ἑταῖρε, ὦ ἀγαθέ, ὦ 
ἄριστε, ὦ βέλτιστε. Besides 
‘these, the Zuth. shows ὦ θαυμά- 
ove, 5 A, 8 A, D, ὦ γενναῖε Εὐθύ- 
φρον, 7 D, ὦ μακάριε. 12 A. 
The adj. θαυμάσιος has lost much 
of its original meaning in Plato 
(cp. RD. § 314) ; but it suggests 
the verb θαυμάζω in its proper 
connection. ὦ μακάριε. in like 
manner, ¢.g. 12 A below, and 
Gorg. 469 C, 471 E, suggests σὲ 
yap μακαρίζω (ironical), which 
compare with εὐδαίμων εἶ, Rep. 
422 E, and ὡς ἡδὺς et, Gorg. 
491 E. See Campbell, Zheaete- 
tus, App. F. (very inadequate). 
- ὡς οὕτω γ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι: ‘at first 
hearing.’ . ὡς c. inf. is used 
to limit an assertion, being 
closely akin to the usage in ellip- 
tical phrases, as, ¢.g., ὡς ἀπ᾽ 
ὀμμάτων, Soph. O.C. 15. For 
the ‘absolute’ inf., which may 
stand without ws, see HA. 956; 


G. 1534; B. 642, 1; GMT. 776-8. 
Here οὕτω is used as in οὕτω... 
ἀποδεχώμεθα, 9 E, meaning ‘ sim- 
ply,’ and denoting more strongly 
than ws that there are mental 
reservations; and. γε further 
strengthens οὕτω. It is possi- 
ble, however, that ye really be- 
longs to as; cp. Rep. 432 B, ὥς 
ye οὑτωσὶ δόξαι, and many other 
passages. 7. φησὶ γάρ: see 
Plato’s version of the indictment 
quoted above on 2 E, Xen. AZem. 
I. I. 1: ἀδικεῖ Σωκράτης ovs μὲν 
ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεοὺς οὐ νομίζων, 
ἕτερα δὲ καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρων * 
ἀδικεῖ δὲ καὶ τοὺς νέους διαφθεί- 
ρῶν. Laert. Diog. 2. 5. 40. 
- ποιητὴν . . Meletus 
was a poet, hence the phrase, 
used to caricature him. It height- 
ens the effect of the absurdity 
(ἄτοπα) of the charge and makes 
it appear more spiteful. The 
wording of the charge in Xen. 
might refer with equal propriety 
to the grotesque insinuations in 
Ar. Clouds; but the term δαιμό- 
via suggests to Euthyphro the 
thought of Socrates’ δαιμόνιον. 
8. οὐ νομίζοντα: νομίζειν de- 
notes not only belief in the ex- 
istence of the gods (ἡγεῖσθαι), 
but adds the idea of νόμος, --- 
religious conformity, ecognizing, 
acknowledging; it therefore ex- 
presses most fully the Greek con- 


θεῶν: 


3B 


10 


ων 


26 


ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ 


[38 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Μανθάνω, ὦ Σώκρατες - ὅτι δὴ σὺ τὸ δαι- 


7 by ῷ ἑκάστοτε γίγνεσθα 
μόνιον φὴς σαυτῷ τοτε γίγν l. 


¢ "> 
ως οὖν και- 


νοτομοῦντός σου περὶ τὰ θεῖα γέγραπται ταύτην τὴν 


γραφήν, καὶ ὡς διαβαλῶν δὴ ἔρχεται εἰς τὸ δικαστή- 


ception corresponding to our 
having faith. Cp. L. Schmidt, 
Ethik der alt. Griechen, 11. 48. 
9. ws φησιν: returns to the 
φησί which opened the sen- 
tence, and adds a doubt as to 
the alleged motives of Meletus. 
Cp. the repetition of φησί Prot. 
345 CD. From the language of 
this passage no conclusion can 
be drawn as to the importance 
attaching to the several counts 
of the indictment. Here the 
question merely is: How, on the 
view of Meletus, is Socrates cor- 
rupting the youth? The answer 
is, By setting an example of irre- 
ligion. (On the indictment, see 
the Introd. to Schanz’s edition 
of the Afol/.) An ulterior mo- 
tive is indeed hinted at in ὥς 
φησιν. but whether it was the 
personal motive mentioned A Pol. 
23 E, cannot be determined. 

10. μανθάνω. .. ὅτι δή: ‘ah, 
Iapprehend. It is, forsooth, be- 
cause,’ etc. ὅτι δή is to be re- 
ferred to φησὶ yap με ποιητὴν 
εἶνα, θεῶν. Cp. 9 B, below. 
-- τὸ δαιμόνιον: Plato (Afol. 
31 D) and Xenophon (Jem. 
I. I. 2) take the same view 
of the case as Euthyphro. 
The psychological phenomenon 
is still unexplained. It was 
clearly, to Socrates, 4 private 
substitute for μαντική --- ἃῃ in- 





spiration or illumination coming 
from the gods. It was an agency 
of the gods (τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ σημεῖον, 
Afol. 40 B), not itself a divinity. 
Acc. to Plato, it exercised only 
the power of veto; acc. to Xeno- 
phon, it even prompted to action, 
not only on the part of Socrates, 
but also of his friends. The 
difficulties in the way of a ra- 
tional interpretation of the phe- 
nomenon are enhanced by the 
circumstance that Plato appears 
to employ it occasionally in a 
spirit of pleasantry to lend inter- 
est to the character of Socrates 
in the dramatic development of 
a dialogue ; while Xenophon, for 
other reasons, is not an unim- 
peachable witness. For fuller 
discussion, see Riddell, 7Zze 
Apology of Plato, App. A; Zeller, 
Phil. der Griechen, 11. i., 474- 
491; Gomperz, Grech. Denker, 
11. 70 ff. 11. γίγνεσθαι: ‘oc- 
curred.’ Note that γίγνεσθαι 
is the standing expression for 
the occurrence of the δαιμόνιον. 
— καινοτομοῦντος : cutting a new 
adrift, a mining term; others, 
with less reason, consider it as 
referring to new coinage. In 
Plato it is always used meta- 
phorically, of revolutionary inno- 
vation. Cp.5A,16A. 13. os 
διαβαλῶν: HA. 969 c, 978: G. 
1563, 4, 1574; B. 653,53; 656, 3. 


3B | 





15 


360] 


EYOY®PON 


37 


5 Ψ lal 
ριον, εἰδὼς ὅτι evdudBoha τὰ τοιαῦτα πρὸς τοὺς 


πολλούς. 


Ν > an / 7 lal 
καὶ ἐμοῦ yap TOL, OTAaV τι λέγω ἐν ΤΊ) | 


ἐκκλησί i τῶν Get λέ ὑτοῖς τὰ μέλ 
ησίᾳ περὶ τῶν θείων, προλέγων αὐτοῖς τὰ μέλ- 


lol ε ’, 
λοντα, καταγελῶσιν ὡς μαινομένονυ. 


΄ Tiwi 3G 
KQLTOL οὐδὲν οτι 


» a a ty qn 
οὐκ ἀληθὲς εἴρηκα ὧν προεῖπον. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως φθονοῦσιν 


ε ΄.- » nw 
ἡμῖν πᾶσι τοῖς τοιούτοις. 


ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν αὐτῶν χρὴ 


29 φροντίζειν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμόσε ἰέναι. 
III. ΣΩ. 70 φίλε Εὐθύφρον, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν κατα- 


᾿γελασθῆναι ἴσως οὐδὲν πρᾶγμα. 


3B 


14. πρός: see note on 2 C, |. 
32. 15. ἐμοῦ καταγελῶσιν: HA. 
yeni. 1123; B. 370. - Note 


Euthyphro’s haste to tell his story. 
16. τὰ μέλλοντα: sc. ἔσεσθαι. 
17. μαινομένου: Euthyphro, as 
ἃ μάντις, might be so called in 


- view of his inspiration (μανία, 


cp. Phaedr. 244 BC); but the 
scoffers meant that he was mad. 
17. καίτοι. .. GAN ὅμως: an 
instance of the so-called palin- 
dromic constr. An apparent con- 


_cession is made, then practically 





withdrawn. καίτοι refers to the 
preceding statement, but is cor- 
relative with the following ἀλλ᾽ 
ὅμως. Cp. Phaedo 68 E (625), 
Symp. 177 ©; Ar. Ran. 43; 
Charm. 175 C; similarly καίτοι 
.. . δέ, Apol. 40 B, and καίτοι 
ΝΠ ἀλλα, Lhacdo 77 A. Cp. 
12 C, 13 CD.— οὐδὲν ὅτι οὐκ: 
ΗΔ. τοοϑα: ἃ. 1035; B.485,N: I. 
18. φθονοῦσιν... τοῖς τοιούτοις: 
for the φθόνος, cp. Afol. 28 A. 
With great condescension Euthy- 
phro classes Socrates with himself 
as an adept in religious lore. 
19. αὐτῶν... φροντίζειν: HA. 


᾿Αθηναίοις yap 


7425 τόθ; Β' 356, “Cpa 
ov δεῖν φροντίζειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ τοιού- 
του. 20. ὁμόσε ἰέναι: Lat. εοη7-- 
minus tre, Close with the enemy ; 
‘tackle,’ as we may say famil- 
iarly; so Euthyd. 294 D ὁμόσε 
ἤτην τοῖς ἐρωτήμασιν. they tackled 
the questions. Plato seems al- 
ways to be conscious that the 
phrase is Homeric (cp. N 337), 
and uses it metaphorically. See 
Rep. 610 C, and cp. Phaedo 
95 B Ὁμηρικῶς ἐγγὺς ἰόντες. 

III. 1. ὦ φίλε Εἰὐθύφρον. ἀλλά : 
the postponement of the conj. 
occurs more freq. with δέ, esp. 
often in Plato and Pindar (Gil- 
dersleeve on O/. 1. 36). Its 
effect is to give pause, and add 
emphasis to the adversative. 
-- - τὸ pe κι: μέν solitarium, 
so-called, without answering δέ; 
common with ἀλλά, at certe, as 
here, or with other particles, as 
μὲν οὖν, μὲν δή, HA. 1037. 12: 
RD. § 242. 2. οὐδὲν πρᾶγμα: 
‘a matter of no consequence’; 
cp. below, 3 Ε οὐδὲν ἔσται πρᾶγ- 
μα, 4 Ὁ οὐδὲν ὃν πρᾶγμα, εἰ καὶ 


; 
ἀποθάνοι. 


ENG 


38 IAATONOS 


[30 


τοι, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, οὐ σφόδρα μέλει, av τινα δεινὸν 


Ε > \ ΄ Ν a ε al 
OLWYTAL ELWAL, μη μέντοι διδασκαλικὸν TNS αὐτου 


΄ι ὰ So. ἢ Ν ΕἾ »» ᾿ a ,ὕ 
5 σοφίας" ὃν δ᾽ ἂν καὶ ἄλλους οἴωνται ποιεῖν τοιού- 


A ΤῊΣ ΤΠ > , ε \ ΄ » 
τους, θυμοῦνται, εἴτ᾽ οὖν φθόνῳ, ὡς σὺ λέγεις, εἴτε 


du ἄλλο τι. 


, a ΄ ν \ Ν SNe 
EY®. Τούτου οὖν πέρι OTWS ποτε πρὸς ELE EXOUTLY, 


5 / . lo a 
ov πάνυ ἐπιθυμῶ πειραθῆναι. 


4. μὴ μέντοι: μή because of 
the implied cond. — διδασκαλικὸν 
- . . σοφίας: for gen. cp. HA. 
754 Ὁ. Socrates says, Aol. 
33 A, that he never was the 
teacher of any man (ἐγὼ δὲ 
διδάσκαλος μὲν οὐδενὸς πώποτ᾽ 
ἐγενόμην) ; Plato here saves 
himself by saying οἴωνται. But 
nothing more is meant than hav- 
ing adherents, and this Socrates 
undoubtedly did. Critias and 
Charicles (Xen. AZem. 1. 2. 31) 
published an edict, directed pri- 
marily against Socrates, — λόγων 
τέχνην μὴ διδάσκειν, not to teach 
the art of argument. Socrates 
disclaimed ability to teach, be- 
cause he professed to know noth- 
ing capable of being taught, and 
because he believed that truth 
could be reached only through 
cooperation of minds —his so- 
called philosophical ‘ midwifery,’ 
μαιευτική, Which required dia- 
logue (διαλέγεσθαι, from which 
διαλεκτική is derived). The no- 
tion, moreover, is here intro- 
duced by Plato, chiefly to prepare 
the way for the demand to be 
instructed by Euthyphro. 5. ὃν 
δ᾽ av : the clause is virtually 
in the dat. with θυμοῦνται, HA. 


764. 25 ἃ 160 3 ΒΕ 270: ΞΞ 
τοιοῦτος, as often (cp. 4 C, 4 D, 
6 B, etc.), refers vaguely to what 
precedes. 6. εἴτ᾽ οὖν φθόνῳ. +. 
εἴτε : emphasis on first alternative, 
cp. RD. § 307. The formula εἴτε 

. εἴτε With οὖν occurs repeat- 
edly, οὖν standing usually after 
the first εἴτε (as here and Afol. 
27 C, Prot. 333 C), once after the 
second (Soph. 2.21. 345), and 
Apol. 34 E after both, with- 
out material difference to the 
thought. Note the simple dat. 
φθόνῳ, followed by διά c. ace. 
8. τούτου οὖν πέρι: regarding 
his capacity as a teacher; for 
πέρι, cp. HA. 109 a; G. 116, 1; 
Β. 68. --- ὅπως ποτέ: just how. - 
This use of the indef. ποτε should 
be noted; it is esp. common in 
Plato with forms of τίς, when a 
definition ts required, as é.g., ΤΏ 
11 A below, ἐρωτώμενος τὸ ὅσιον, 
ὅτι ποτ᾽ ἔστιν. Cp. esp. AZeno 
72 Β ἐρομένου μελίττης περὶ 
οὐσίας. ὅτι ποτ᾽ ἔστιν. Other 
words are similarly used, as 4.9. 
tis δή 13 Ὁ, τί δήποτ᾽ 15 A. As 
ποτέ is here reénforced by δή, it 
is often associated with kat; cp. 
Gorg. 455 A φέρε δή, ἴδωμεν τί 
ποτε καὶ λέγομεν [see Frohberger 





10 


=. 


3 E] EYOY®PON 39 


» XN \ Ἂς lol 
302. Ἴσως yap σὺ μὲν δοκεῖς σπάνιον σεαυτὸν 
Ν lal 
παρέχειν καὶ διδάσκειν οὐκ ἐθέλειν τὴν σεαυτοῦ 
’ 3 Ν Ν on 
σοφίαν: ἐγὼ δὲ φοβοῦμαι, μὴ ὑπὸ φιλανθρωπίας 
δοκῶ αὐτοῖς ὅτιπερ ἔχω ἐκκεχυμένως παντὶ ἀνδρὶ 
λέγειν, οὐ μόνον ἄνευ μισθοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ προστιθεὶς 
“Ὁ “δέ » ΄ θέ > , > Ν > 
ἂν ἡδέως, εἴ τίς μου ἐθέλοι ἀκούειν. εἰ μὲν οὖν, 
ἃ an on » ΄ ΄ A Ψ 
ὃ νῦν δὴ ἔλεγον, μέλλοιέν μου καταγελᾶν, ὥσπερ 
Ἂς \ a > \ ΕΝ » > Ν ͵ Ν 
σὺ φὴς σαυτοῦ, οὐδὲν ἂν εἴη ἀηδὲς [ παίζοντας καὶ 


γελῶντας ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ διαγαγεῖν. εἰ δὲ σπουδά- 


20 


3D 


a > »¥ ῳ > ΄ » Ν «ε A 
σονται, TOUT ἤδη ὅπῃ ἀποβήσεται ἀδηλον πλὴν ὑμῖν 


τοῖς μάντεσιν. 


on Lys. 12. 29 (ΑΡρ.)]. Again, 
καί alone may take its place: cp. 
Gorg.474.C καὶ yap ἐπιθυμῶ εἰδέ- 
ναι ὅτι ποτ᾽ ἐρεῖς with Gorg. 


467 C ἀλλ᾽ ἐθέλω ἀποκρίνεσθαι, 


2 ἣν sor ΄ ἢ 
_ ἵνα καὶ εἰδῶ ὅτι λέγεις. 


10. σὺ μὲν. .. ἐγὼ δέ: the 
pronouns give only so much em- 
phasis as is necessary for the 
contrast. 12. φιλανθρωπίας : see 
the paper by Higginson, Pro- 


ceed. Amer. Phil. Ass'n. V «20 ff. 





13. ἐκκεχυμένως : G. 306. 14. ἄνευ 
pioGot: “2201. 23 C Socrates 
says he is in extremest poverty 
(ἐν πενίᾳ μυρίᾳ εἰμί); but he 
regards it as dishonorable to 
require pay for his counsels and 
instruction, if so it may be called 
(Georg. 520 E), and converses 
freely (ἐκκεχυμένως) with all 
who may desire (4Zol. 33 A). 
He repeatedly emphasizes his 
own refusal of pay in contrast 
with the conduct of the Sophists, 
whom he loves to ridicule (AZol. 
19 D, 31 B, Rep. 337 D, 344 E). 
- προστιθεὶς av ἡδέως : equiv. to 


προστιθείην ἂν ἡδέως, the part. 
being preferred because more 
nearly parallel to ἄνευ μισθοῦ; 
the verb is used abs., hence 
no need of supplying μισθόν. 
16. μέλλοιεν... σπουδάσονται: 
note the mixed cond. The 
change from the ideal opt. to the 
indic. marks the latter alternative 
as the more likely to take place. 
Cp. 9 C. Att. prose regularly 
makes the fut. of σπουδάζω in the 
mids ἀρ: B:-507. (On the use 
of the mid., see Rutherford, 7%e 
New Phrynichus, p. 138 and pp. 
376 ff He says, p. 138: “All 
verbs expressing the exercise of 
the senses, or denoting any func- 
tional state or process, have the 
inflections of the mid. voice either 
throughout or in the fut. tense.” 
σπουδάζω does not strictly fall 
into this classification, but may 
be regarded as somewhat analo- 
gous. There are, however, many 
semi-deponents of which Ruther- 
ford takes noaccount. 19. τοῦτ᾽ 
ἤδη: ‘here we come to a matter 


3D 


3.) 


40 


ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ 


[3Ε 


ΕΥΘ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἴσως οὐδὲν ἔσται, ὦ Σώκρατες, πρᾶγμα, 
5 Ν , \ la 5 A \ ὃ ΄ rey) ὃ Ν Ν 
ἀλλὰ σύ τε κατὰ νοῦν ἀγωνιεῖ τὴν δίκην; οἰμαι OE καὶ 


SENS Ἃ Sie tye 
EME ΤῊΝ ἐμὴν. 


IV. 30. Ἔστιν δὲ δή σοι, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, τίς ἡ 
δίκη; φεύγεις αὐτὴν ἢ διώκεις ; 


ΕΥΘ. Διώκω. 
32. Tiva; | 


EYO. Ὃν διώκων ad δοκῶ μαίνεσθαι. 


, 
ΣΩ. Ti δέ; πετόμενόν τινα διώκεις ; 


which,’ etc. Cp. ᾿ξ. 436 A 
τόδε δὲ ἤδη χαλεπόν. Here 
non, as οὕπω (Rep. 353 C, 
370 D) and οὐκέτι (e.g. Rep. 
430 D, 468 B, Legg. 792 C), ap- 
plies to an ideal limit, not to 
objective time; the reference is 
to a stage of the argument not 
yet reached (οὔπω). or reached 
(ἤδη. sometimes, in neg. clauses, 
οὐκέτι; Cp. οὐχ ἁπλοῦν ETL τοῦτο 
ἐρωτᾷς, Gorg. 503 A), or already 
past (οὐκέτι). Rep. 348 E (ἤδη 
and οὐκέτι) and Gorg. 486 E, 
487 E, are good examples to 
study. Note the emphasis on 
TOUTO. — ὅπῃ ἀποβήσεται. 
μάντεσιν : cp. Xen. Jem. 1. 1. 6 
περὶ δὲ τῶν ἀδήλων ὅπως ἀποβή- 
TOTO μαντευσομένους 


τς ποῖς 


ἔπεμπεν 
(sc. ὃ Σωκράτης) εἰ ποιητέα. 
Socrates facetiously adopts the 
phraseology of the soothsayers. 
By saying ὑμῖν, he declines to be 
classed with Euthyphro ; contrast 
ἡμῖν πᾶσιν τοῖς τοιούτοις, 3 C. 
22. σύτε... οἶμαι δέ: ἃ slight 
anacoluthon (on which see Froh- 
berger on Lys. 25. 34 App.), 
not infrequent when the second 
member is to be emphasized; 


here it marks Euthyphro’s eager- 
ness to direct attention to his 
own case. Cp. note on ὥσπερ 
ἐμοί, 2. Α. --- κατὰ νοῦν : Zo your 
mind. This sample of Euthy- 
phro’s prophetic powers is not 
calculated to win respect; but 
the kindly wish is father to the 
thought. — δίκην : Euthyphro 
again employs the generic term, 
for the more specific, γραφήν; 
see note on 2A. — καὶ ἐμέ: HA. 
940 Ὁ; B. 630,N. The idiomatic 
phrase οἶμαι δὲ καί is frequent 
in Plato, taking sometimes the 
acc. and sometimes (as οἶμαι 
may be parenthetic) the nom. 
Cp. Lach. 180 A οἶμαι δὲ καὶ 
Λάχητα τόνδε and Rep. 608 D 
οἶμαι δὲ καὶ σύ. 

IV. 1. ἔστιν δὲ δή : note that 
δὲ δή. as usual, marks the transi- 
tion toa new subject. Say, ‘ well, 
then, but what of your trial?’ 
For ὃὲ δή; see 4 B, 4 ἘΣ ἢ 
13 B. 42. φεύγεις αὐτὴν ἢ διώ- 
κεις : tech. terms in law, HA. 
820; G. 1241; B. 513; for αὐτὴν» 
see’ HA. 715. b; G: Tost ΒΒ 555. 
5. αὖ: again; see3C. 6, shiten 
merely announces a question. 


3Ε 


4 ΑἹ 








10 


15 


4A 


8. εὖ μάλα: 


4 Β] 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Πολλοῦ γε δεῖ πέτεσθαι, ὅς γε τυγχάνει ὧν 


εὖ μάλα πρεσβύτης. 
ΣΩ. Τίς οὗτος; 
ΕΥ̓Θ. Ὁ ἐμὸς πατήρ. 


302. Ὃ σός, ὦ 
ΕΥ̓Θ. Πάνυ μὲν οὖν. 


ΕΥ̓ΘΥΦΡΩ͂Ν 


41 


βέλτιστε; 


ΣΩ. Ἔστιν δὲ τί τὸ ἔγκλημα καὶ τίνος ἡ δίκη ; 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Φόνου, ὦ Σώκρατες. 


© Υ a > A 
SQ. Ἡράκλεις! 7) που, ὦ Εὐθύφρον. ἀγνοεῖται ὑπὸ 


ἴων “ yy δ Ne. “A ¥ 
τῶν πολλῶν, ὅπῃ ποτὲ ὀρθῶς ἔχει 


“ιν ΄, 5 lal αν lal 5 Ν , 
YE TOV ἐπιτυχόντος ὀρθῶς αὐτὸ πρᾶξαι, ἀλλὰ | πόρρω 
που ἤδη σοφίας ἐλαύνοντος. 


Cp. 7} .--- πετόμενόν τινα διώκεις : 
a pun, διώκω standing in both 
the legal and the literal sense ; 
in the latter the phrase is pro- 
verbial, as we speak of ‘a wild- 
goose chase.’ Cp. £uthyd. 
201 B. 

7. ὅς ye: causal, gu quidem. 
Sp. 6 B οἵ ye κτλ. 
ev intensive; cp. 
Charm. 154 Β εὖ pada... 
μειράκιον, Xen. Cyrop. 8. 7. I 
μάλα δὴ πρεσβύτης wv, Phaedo 
92 D εὖ μάλα ἐξαπατῶσι. Some- 
times, however, μάλα reénforces 
ev. Cp. Epic ed πάντες and pada 
πάντες, guite all. τι. ὁ σός: 
the repetition, in the form of 


> ΄ 
αυτο!:-: 


a question, marks surprise. Cp. 
Rep. 328 A. 12. πάνυ μὲν οὖν: 
see note on πάνυ ye, 2 B. 


13. τίνος 4 δίκη: almost = τίς 
ἡ δίκη, 3 E. The gen. denotes 
that for which an action is laid, 
as δίκη κακηγορίας, an action 
for libel. So φόνου in 1. 14. 


15. ‘Hpdkders! expressing (with 
or without ὦ) great astonish- 
ment; GS. 24. Cp. Tac. Azz: 
4. 28. I miserarum ac saevitiae 
exemplum atrox, reus pater, accu- 
sator filius. Plato, Zys. 208 E 
Ἡράκλεις. ἣν δ᾽ ἐγώ, μῶν μή τι 
ἠδίκηκας τὸν πατέρα ἢ τὴν μη- 
τέρα; ;— ἢ που: surely, indeed, 
ironical. 16. ὅπῃ ποτὲ ὀρθῶς 
ἔχει : evidently there is here a 
lacuna. We may supply from 
9 A τὸ ἐπεξιέναι φόνου τὸν υἱὸν 
πατρί (with Schanz) or from the 
immediate context τὸ τῷ πατρὶ 
φόνον ἐγκαλεῖν (with Wohlrab). 
See App. 17. τοῦ ἐπιτυχόντος: 
‘the part 91 anybody taken at 
random.’ HA. 732C¢; G. 1094. 1. 
Gp. παντὸς ἀν δρὸς ἐπαίνῳ καὶ 
ψόγῳ, Crito 47 B. The aor. part. 
ὃ ἐπιτυχών is regularly used in 
this sense. So, too, 6 τυχών and 
ὃ προστυχών. 18. σοφίας: HA. 
757; G. 1092; Β. 360. Cp.Crat. 
410 E πόρρω ἤδη: οἶμαι, φαίνομαι 


> \ > ΄ 
- + Οὗ Yap οἰμαι 


4A 


B 


20 


4B 


IIAATQNOS [4B 


EYO. Πόρρω μέντοι νὴ Δία, ὦ Σώκρατες. 

ΣΩ. Ἔστιν δὲ δὴ τῶν οἰκείων τις ὃ τεθνεὼς ὑπὸ 

an a , x δὴλ ὃ ΄ 5 Ν 3, ε , 
τοῦ σοῦ πατρός; ἢ δῆλα Oy; OV yap ἂν που UTEP γε 
ἀλλοτρίου ἐπεξήεισθα φόνου αὐτῷ 

P 1) Pie 
a > ΄ “ , 

EY®. Τέλοιον, ὦ Σώκρατες, OTL OLEL τι διαφέρειν, 
» 5 / A 5 »»Ἅ ε ΄ὔ 5» 3 5» nr 
εἴτε ἀλλότριος εἴτε οἰκεῖος ὁ τεθνεώς, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τοῦτο 

/ “ , 4 5 , », ἐδ. 1A 
μόνον dew φυλάττειν, εἴτε ἐν δίκῃ ἔκτεινεν ὁ κτείνας 
» » \ > Ν 5 , 3A > Ν Ἂ 5 , 
εἴτε μή, Kal εἰ μὲν ἐν δίκῃ, ἐᾶν, εἰ δὲ μή, ἐπεξιέναι, 
ἐάνπερ 6 κτείνας συνέστιός σοι καὶ ὁμοτράπεζος ἡ. | 


σοφίας ἐλαύνειν. The metaphor 
in ἐλαύνοντος is derived from the 
race-course. 

19. μέντοι : attached closely to 
Cp. Afol. 35 D ἄλλως 
τε μέντοι νὴ Ata πάντως, where 
μέντοι νὴ Δία divides ἄλλως τε 
πάντως. 20. τῶν οἰκείων TLS: ACC. 
to Greek law, all δίκαι φονικαί, 7.6. 
prosecutions for manslaughter, 
etc., had to be brought either 
by)the person assailed or by his 
kindred. The case of Euthyphro 
is therefore quite exceptional, as 
will appear in the sequel. It 
has been conjectured that the 
workman (πελάτης. see 4 C) 
stood to Euthyphro in the rela- 
tion of an hereditary dependent, 
so that the latter could legally 
represent him as if he were his 
Slaves “See Meier u. Schoe- 
mann, 277. Process, 1. 199, N. 10. 
21. ἢ δῆλα δή: cp. Prot. 309 A, 
Rep. 452 A; ἢ δῆλον δή, Soph. 
Ao ID); ΠΡ πη: α: IND) 
§§ 17, 42. Cp. οὐδέτερα, 9 D. 
22. φόνου: HA. 745 a; G. 1121; 
B.367. 23. διαφέρειν : Ζ.4. to him 
as a moral agent; in point of 
law, there was a great difference. 


νὴ Ava. 


25. φυλάττειν: ‘regard, con- 
sider’; by a natural catachresis, 
almost = σκοπεῖν. Cp. Aol. 
28 B ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ (ola δεῖν) ἐκεῖνο 
μόνον σκοπεῖν. ὅταν πράττῃ; 
πότερα. κτλ. 26. εἰ μὲν ἐν δίκῃ: 
there were certain circumstances 
that constituted a φόνος δέ 
Katos, or justifiable homicide, 
e.g. killing one unintentionally, 
or in self-defense; killing an 
adulterer; and possibly tyran- 
nicide. Cp. Dem. 25 ἡ π᾿ 
27. ἐάνπερ ὁ κτείνας : Euthyphro 
considers the desire to avoid 
contact with bloodguiltiness a 
sufficient motive for violating 
tradition and the formal require- 
ments of the law relative to 
bringing forward an accusation. 
He alleges none of the altruistic 
motives for punishment men- 
tioned Gorg. 480 D. For the 
μίασμα resulting from fellowship 
with the murderer and_ the 
criminal generally, see Antipho, 
Tetra. τ. τ. 10; πο τ 
Horace, C. 3. 2. 26 ἢ. κτείνας, 
for the regular Att. ἀποκτείνας, 
is a bit of legal archaism, as may 
be seen in Demosthenes, Jasszmz. 





30 


4C 


4C] 


EYOY®PON 


43 


» \ Ν , , “ ἴω 
ἰσον γὰρ τὸ μίασμα γίγνεται, ἐὰν ξυνῆς τῷ τοιούτῳ 


δὰ Ν Ν 5 A / Neus A A 
ξυνειδὼς Kal μὴ ἀφοσιοῖς σεαυτόν TE Kal ἐκεῖνον ™ 


δίκῃ ἐπεξιών. 


> re Ν ε 5 a 5 la / 5 ,ὕ ΕῚ lal 
EOS, καὶ WS ἐγεωργουμεν EV TH Νάξῳ, ἐθήτευεν EKEL 


29. τῇ δίκῃ ἐπεξιών : the dat. 
may be instrum., buat is more 
prob. merely a variant of δίκην 
ἐπεξιών. to be constr. acc. to 
ΕΝ 772; G. 1177; B: 392. Cp. 
Clitopho 408 D ἐπεξελθεῖν... τῷ 
πράγματι, to follow the matter 
up ; Lys. 215 Ὁ ἐπεξήει τῷ λόγῳ; 
Gorg. 492 D οὐκ ἀγεννῶς... 
ἐπεξέρχει TO λόγῳ; Rep. 349 A, 
361 D; Rep. 366 E οὐδεὶς πώποτε 
οὔτ᾽ ἐν ποιήσει οὔτ᾽ ἐν ἰδίοις 
λόγοις ἐπεξῆλθεν ἱκανῶς τῷ λόγῳ, 
ὡς κτλ. See note on ὁμόσε ἰέναι, 
3 (, and cp. Gorg. 495 C ἐπι- 
χειρῶμεν apa τῷ λόγῳ Cp. 
also ἐπεξιέναι τινί (alicuz ), 1. 22. 
30. ἐπεὶ... γε: concessive, as 
below, 8 D, 9 B, 11 D; so also 
Gar. Alo A; TLheaet. 142 Ὁ: 
yap. 187 A: Gorg. 471 E. 
This use of ἐπεί is very like Lat. 
cum concessive and adversative. 
The conj. merely indicates the 
existence of a relation; when 
the cause is not sufficient, we 
call it concessive or adversative. 
Cp. GL. §§ 586 f.— πελάτης : 
here = θής (15 D, cp. θητεύω 
in]. 31, andg A), a free day- 
laborer.. As the victim was 
a freeman, the legal right of 
Euthyphro to represent him in 
court may well be doubted. 
But, doubtful as it is, it is not 
impossible. Cp. Dem. 47. 68-70. 
The suggestion that the πελάτης 


5 Ν ν 5 Ν ΄, > 
ETMTEL Ὁ YE ἀποθανὼν πελάτης τις nV 


was legally a client seems to rest 
upon an anachronism; for that 
use of the term does not occur 
before the Roman conquest of 
Greece. But the paid laborer 
was at Athens little better than 
a slave (Lys. 12. 98), and, in 
the days of Augustus, Dionys. 
Hal. (Antig. 2. 9) says that the 
Athenians treated the πελάται 
as purchased slaves. 31. éyewp- 
γοῦμεν ἐν τῇ Νάξῳ: Naxus, the 
largest of the Cyclades, became 
subject to Athens about 473 
B.C., Whereupon κληροῦχοι were 
established there. (Cp. Boeckh, 
Staatshaush. der Athener, 1.3 
540 a.) It is prob., but not 
certain, that Euthyphro’s father 
was one of them; and since 
the power of Athens over the 
island ceased after Aegospo- 
tami (September, 405), his hold- 
ings as κληροῦχος also would 
have been lost. There remain 
to be accounted for, on that sup- 
position, about five years before 
399, when Socrates was tried. 
Whether statutes of limitation 
would here apply to vitiate the 
suit brought by Euthyphro, is 
one of the moot-points of Attic 
law. Possibly Euthyphro’s case 
had no standing in court; or, 
again, Plato may here be guilty of 
one of the anachronisms which 
he admits for dramatic effect. 


4C 


35 


40 


46 


D 


aA IIAATONOS [4c 


παρ᾽ ἡμῖν. παροινήσας οὖν καὶ ὀργισθεὶς τῶν οἰκε- 
τῶν τινι τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀποσφάττει αὐτόν: ὁ οὖν 
πατὴρ συνδήσας τοὺς πόδας καὶ τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ, 
καταβαλὼν εἰς τάφρον τινά, πέμπει δεῦρο ἄνδρα πευ- 
σόμενον τοῦ ἐξηγητοῦ, ὅτι χρείη ποιεῖν. ἐν δὲ τούτῳ 
τῷ χρόνῳ Tov | δεδεμένου ὠλιγώρει τε καὶ ἠμέλει ὡς 
ἀνδροφόνου καὶ οὐδὲν ὃν πρᾶγμα, εἰ καὶ ἀποθάνοι" 
ὑπὸ γὰρ λιμοῦ καὶ ῥίγους καὶ 
τῶν δεσμῶν ἀποθνήσκει πρὶν τὸν ἄγγελον παρὰ τοῦ 


Ψ > \ » Η 
O7TEp ουν Και ἔπαθεν 


ἐξηγητοῦ ἀφικέσθαι. 
32. οἰκετῶν τινι: note the 
hyperbaton of τινὶ to improve 
the rhythm; similarly, Afol. 
55. Dy Cp iGone. 450 eA: 
33. ἀποσφάττει: ἀπο- suggests a 
cruel and brutal deed. 36. τοῦ 
ἐξηγητοῦ: see below, g A; for 
the gen., see HA. 750; G. 1103; 
B. 365. The ἐξηγηταί (τῶν 
ὁσίων) were three in number, 
and were charged, among other 
offices, with the duty of direct- 
ing complainants how to pro- 
ceed in the difficult cases having 
to do with bloodguiltiness. It 
seems prob. that the members 
of this college were chosen by 
the Delphic oracle from a list of 
nine placed in nomination by 
the state. Here only one, their 
president, is mentioned. See 
Scholl, Hermes 6, pp. 36 ἢ. 
47. τοῦ δεδεμένου : HA. 742; 
G. 1102; Β. 356. -- ὡς ἀνδροφόνου : 
Sc. ὄντος; in the pred. This is not 
agen. abs.,as some have thought. 
38. οὐδὲν ὃν πρᾶγμα: acc. abs., 
ΕΠᾺ 75: Ga τε θο; bueson, ane 
acc. abs. is here subjoined to ἃ 


Lal \ > ἊΝ 5 a - 
ταυτα, δὴ ουν και AYAVAKTEL oO 


dependent part. ; sometimes, as 
Rep. 604 B, Xen. Men. 2. 2. 13, 
Thue. 7. 25.7, acc. abs. and gen. 
abs. are combined, often for 
special reasons. Cp. 1. 44 f. —et 
καὶ ἀποθάνοι : even zf he should 
die. The opt. marks the event as, 
from his point of view, unlikely ; 
kat denotes death as the worst 
that could befall him. 39. οὖν: 
the event is a natural conse- 
quence. Similar phrasesare freq., 
as Charm. 155 Β ὃ οὖν καὶ ἐγένετο 
(cp. Euthyd. 283 A, Rep. 564 C) 
marking transition. —tmwo . . . 
ἀποθνήσκει : note pass. force, HA. 
820; B. 513; GS. 171; ὑπὸ per 
sonifies, GS. 166. Cp. 12°A- 
40. πρὶν. . . ἀφικέσθαι: HA. 
955; G.1470f.; GMT. 621, 622, 
626. 41. ταῦτα: HA. 719 ¢; 
G. 1060. The common constr. 
is ἀγανακτεῖν τινι; OY emt τινι. 
kat denotes 
Euthyphro’s wonderment at their 
displeasure; he thinks it quite 
unreasonable. Note ἀγανακτεῖ 
. . . ὅτι; elsewhere in Plato 
(Aol. 34 C, Gorg. 482 D, 518 C, 


—kal ἀγανακτεῖ: 





45 


50 


4D 





4 E] EYOY®PON 45 


Ν ἣν ε ” > ἴω ν » Ν ε Ν lal >) 

TE πατὴρ καὶ ol ἄλλοι οἰκεῖοι, OTL ἐγὼ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀνδρο- 

, ὟΝ Ν » 5 ΄ » 
φόνου τῷ πατρὶ φόνου ἐπεξέρχομαι, οὔτε ἀποκτείναντι, 
72 5 “ ¥ 3 A 
ὥς φασιν ἐκεῖνοι, OUT εἰ OTL μάλιστα ἀπέκτεινεν, ἀν- 
ὃ Zz » nn 5 A , > “ ,ὔ 
ροφόνου γε ὄντος τοῦ ἀποθανόντος. οὐ δεῖν φροντί- 

ε A “ Ν > 
{ew ὑπὲρ τοῦ τοιούτου: ἀνόσιον yap | εἶναι TO υἱὸν 
Ν /, > Lad Le) > / S ’ 
πατρὶ φόνου ἐπεξιέναι: κακῶς εἰδότες, ὦ Σώκρατες, 
\ A ε » rn ΄“ 
τὸ θεῖον ὡς ἔχει τοῦ ὁσίου τε πέρι καὶ τοῦ ἀνοσίου. 
\ \ \ δ ΄ δε 

ΣΩ. Σὺ δὲ δὴ πρὸς Διός, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, οὑτωσὶ 
>. nw »᾿ ΕῚ , an ο 
ἀκριβῶς over ἐπίστασθαι περὶ τῶν θείων. ὅπῃ ἔχει, 

\ ἴων ε 7 \ , ο ἐν 
καὶ τῶν ὁσίων τε καὶ ἀνοσίων, ὥστε τούτων οὕτω 


πραχθέντων, ὡς σὺ λέγεις, οὐ φοβεῖ δικαζόμενος 


Lach. 194 A, Legg. 903 D) εἰ is 
used. Cp. HA. 926; G. 1423 f.; 
B. 598.1; GMT. 494-496. Gorg. 
519 B, as. A similar showing is 
discovered by referring to Ast’s 
Lex. Plat. for other similar expres- 
sions, such as ἀγαπῶ (no case 
of ὅτι3), χαλεπαίνω (ep. 480, εἰ; 
ΠΣ. 236.C, av; Luth. 6 A, 
ott), θαυμάζω (εἰ or ἐάν sixteen 
times, ὅτι four times), δεινόν ἐστι 
(εἰ six times, ὅτι twice). But 
Ast’s enumeration is incomplete. 

44. οὔτ᾽ εἰ ὅτι μάλιστα ἀπέκτει- 
γεν: ‘nor, were it never so true 
that he had killed him.’ Here 
ὅτι μάλιστα does not really in- 
tensify the verb, but merely 
emphasizes the condition as a 
whole; similarly, below, 9 C, 
Meno 80 D, Crat. 435 A, Charm. 
160 C, A/c. 7.106 A, 113 D. See 
note on 15 B. Compare μάλι- 
στα and σφόδρα ye in answers. 
45. ov δεῖν: here δεῖν is Att. 
for δέον, acc. abs. Note the 
pleonasm of οὐ after οὔτε, and 


see RD. § 263: “The object of 
the pleonasm is, after premising 
the neg. as an announcement of 
the general form of the sent., to 
place it also in close contact with 
the word which it immediately 
concerns.” — φροντίζειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
τοιούτου: cp. 3 ( οὐδὲν αὐτῶν 
χρὴ φροντίζειν. 46. 
unholy. The dialogue deals with 
Holiness, and this is the first real 
mention of the theme, although 
Euthyphro has before (4 C) used 
the word ἀφοσιοῖς. Socrates is 
not slow to catch the word and 
avail himself of it to lead up to 
the discussion of the principle 
at stake. 48. τὸ θεῖον ὡς ἔχει: 
‘what the divine law is in regard 
to’: a case of prolepsis, HA. 
878; so also περὶ τῶν θείων, ὅπῃ 
ἔχει; 1. 50. The phrase is forced. 
51. Kal ἀνοσίων: TE 
καί regularly connect opposites 
as well as similars. The καί be- 
fore ὁσίων is explicative, not con- 
nective. 


ἀνόσιον: 


= 
ὁσίων τε 


v7 


4D 


55 


4E 


5A 


46 MAATONOS [4Ε 


τῷ πατρί, ὅπως μὴ αὖ σὺ ἀνόσιον πρᾶγμα τυγχάνῃς 
πράττων; 

ΕΥΘ. Οὐδὲν yap ἄν μου ὄφελος εἴη, ὦ Σώκρατες, 
οὐδέ τῳ ἂν διαφέροι | Εὐθύφρων τῶν πολλῶν ἀνθρώ- 
πων, εἰ μὴ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα ἀκριβῶς εἰδείην. 

V. 30. *Ap’ οὖν μοι, ὦ θαυμάσιε Ἐὐθύφρον, κρά- 
τιστόν ἐστι μαθητῇ σῷ γενέσθαι καὶ πρὸ τῆς γραφῆς 
τῆς πρὸς Μέλητον αὐτὰ ταῦτα προκαλεῖσθαι αὐτὸν 

΄ Ψ » Nes nxn» , \ 
λέγοντα, ὅτι ἔγωγε Kal ἐν τῷ ἔμπροσθεν χρόνῳ τὰ 

a ἊΝ “ = , =) , las 5 , 
θεῖα περὶ πολλοῦ ἐποιούμην εἰδέναι, Kal νῦν ἐπειδή 
με ἐκεῖνος αὐτοσχεδιάζοντά φησι καὶ καινοτομοῦντα 


53. ὅπως μὴ αὖ σύ: for ὅπως 
μή after verbs of fearing, see HA. 
887a; G.1379; B.594,N.; GMT. 
279. Schanz, ad doc., cites as 
further examples, Phaedo 77 B, 
$4 B, Symp. 193 A, Alc. 77. 
150 B. But Sywp. 193 A edd. 
read διασχισθησόμεθα. 55. οὐδὲν 

. ely: “1 should be οἵ no use’; 
lit., there would be no use of me. 
Cp. Afol. 28 B, Crito 46 A. 
56. τῳ av διαφέροι: HA. 781 a; 
G. 1184; B. 388. Note that τῳ is 
not the art. — Εἰὐὐθύφρων : in thus 
speaking of himself in the third 
person, Euthyphro displays his 
self-complacency. Cp. Phaedo 
gi C, Homer A 240, Aesch. Prom. 
306, Soph. Azax οὗ. O.C. 3, Dem. 
18.79. Among poets it is often 
a rhetorical device, as é.g. in 
Horace; in Catullus it amounts 
toa mannerism. Note how Eu- 
thyphro passes from the third 
person to the first in εἰδείην. 
— ἀνθρώπων: HA. 748; G. 
Tw 562. Ἱ- 

V. 1. ap οὖν: for the more 


common dp’ οὖν ov or οὐκοῦν, an- 
ticipating an affirmative answer ; 
so also Gorg. 477 A, Phaedo 65 E, 
Meno 86 A, 89 B, Crat. 388 B. 
Cp. ἄρα, 6 A, for dp ov. 2. pa- 
θητῇ.. .. λέγοντα: HA. 941; G. 
928: τα ΒΒ: 631-51; IRDA Soa 
3. αὐτὰ ταῦτα: HA. 716 b; G. 
1054; B.334. Cp.@ προυκαλούμην 
αὐτόν. 1. 16.— προκαλεῖσθαι : for 
the procedure in court, see Gow, 
A Companion to School Classics, 
§ 76. Before the trial (πρὸ τῆς 
γραφῆς) either party to the suit 
might offer the other a challenge 
(πρόκλησις) to take any steps 
with a view to a _ settlement, 
which, if declined, would possi- 
bly establish a presumption in 
favor of the challenger. In this 
case, the refusal would tend to 
impugn Meletus’s alleged mo- 
tives of public interest and make 
him appear to be acting from 
personal animosity. 4. ὅτι: G. 
1477. — ἔμπροσθεν: HA. 666 a; 
G. 952.1. 5. περὶ πολλοῦ: HA. 
$03.) ἢ; ΒΥ: iss 





10 


19 


20 


5B 


- tually in appos. with ἐκείνῳ. Cp. 


5 C] EYOY®PON 47 


Car θ , 5 ΄ὕ \ \ , ΄ 
περὶ τῶν θείων ἐξαμαρτάνειν, μαθητὴς δὴ γέγονα σός 
x > , i , , » “9 , ¢ 
— καὶ εἰ μέν, ὦ Μέλητε, φαίην av, ὐθύφρονα ὁμο- 
λογεῖς | σοφὸν εἶναι τὰ τοιαῦτα, καὶ ὀρθῶς νομίζειν 
ΠΝ 6 A Ἂ Ἂ ὃ id > \ , > , a 
ἐμὲ ἡγοῦ Kal μὴ δικάζου- εἰ δὲ μή, ἐκείνῳ τῷ διδα- 
,ὔ ᾽ὔ δί ᾽,ὔ “ἡ > , c Ν 
σκάλῳ λάχε δίκην πρότερον ἢ ἐμοί, ὡς τοὺς πρεσβυ- 
τέρους διαφθείροντι, ἐμέ τε καὶ τὸν αὑτοῦ πατέρα, 
ἐμὲ μὲν διδάσκοντι, ἐκεῖνον δὲ νουθετοῦντί τε καὶ 
’ὔ 4 \ >» 4 4 \ 3 ’ “A 
κολάζοντι -᾿ καὶ ἂν μή μοι πείθηται μηδὲ ἀφίῃ τῆς 
“Ὁ 5 “ cal 
δίκης ἢ ἀντ᾽ ἐμοῦ γράφηται σέ, αὐτὰ ταῦτα λέγειν 
ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ, ἃ προυκαλούμην αὐτόν ; 
ΕΥ̓Θ. Ναὶ μὰ Δία, ὦ Σώκρατες, εἰ ἄρα με ἐπιχειρή- 
σειε γράφεσθαι. εὕροιμ᾽ ἄν, ὡς | 
ἐστιν, καὶ πολὺ ἂν ἡμῖν πρότερον περὶ ἐκείνου λόγος 


icy LA / 
οἶμαι, ὅπῃ σαθρός 


, A * \ lal 

ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ ἢ περὶ ἐμοῦ. 

Ν > lal lal 
30. Kat ἐγώ τοι, ὦ φίλε ἑταῖρε, ταῦτα γιγνώσκων 

’ ) γον 
Ν BJ “Ὁ ’ / > / 9 ἣς Ἂ 
μαθητὴς ἐπιθυμῶ γενέσθαι σός. εἰδώς. ὅτι καὶ ἄλλος 
Ἐν» δε ΄ ae \ \ 950" πεν τα Ὑπὶ 

πού τις καὶ ὁ Μέλητος οὗτος σὲ μὲν οὐδὲ δοκεῖ ὁρᾶν. 
9. τὰ τοιαῦτα: HA. 718; G. τῶν 
1058; B. 330. 10. εἰ δὲ μή: 
‘otherwise.’ — τῷ διδασκάλῳ : vir- 


44 εὑρήσει τὰ oabpa.. . 
ἐκείνου (sc. Φιλίππου) πραγμάτων 
αὐτὸς ὁ πόλεμος. πολὺ ἂν 
πρότερον κτλ.: ‘it would sooner 
be a question of him than of 
me.’ On the hyperbaton of 
πολύ, which limits πρότερον. see 
HA. 1062. Note the sudden 
change from the ideal (εἰ. 

ἐπιχειρήσειε. . - εὕροιμ᾽ ay) to 
the contrary-to-fact condition 


the common constr. of ἄλλος. 
11. λάχε δίκην : see Gow, of. cit., 
p- 132,n.2: “It would seem that 
plaintifis balloted for the order 
in which their cases should be 
taken; hence δίκην λαχεῖν was 
practically to lodge a claim at 


law.” 12. διαφθείροντι : note the 
double meaning, explained by é:- 
δάσκοντι ἀπ κολάζοντι. 14. ἀφίῃ 
τῆς δίκης : cp. τούτου ἀφίημί σε. 


QC. 15. λέγειν : depends on κρά- 





τίστον, 5 A, 1. I. 17. εἰ ἄρα: 
HA. 1048.1. ἄρα emphasizes 
the cond. 18. ὅπῃ σαθρός ἐστιν : 
‘his weak spot’; cp. Dem. 4. 


(av... ἐγένετο). vividly declar- 
ing the confidence of Euthyphro 
that the case will not arise. The 
opposite change takes place, é.g. 
7 D, Meno 89 B, Xen. Cyneg. 12. 
See below ong C. 23. 6 
Μέλητος οὗτος : the tone is con- 
temptuous. οὗτος marks him, 
with all his previously men- 


22. 


B 


Bie 


25 


aC 


48 


NAATONOS 


[50 


a Ἃ \ Ψ ΟΣ PL Nye ΄ a y 3 
εμε δὲ OUTWS ὀξέως και ῥᾳδίως κατεῖδεν, WOTE ασε- 


βείας ἐγράψατο. 


la > Ἂς XN , a rn 
νῦν οὖν πρὸς Διὸς λέγε μοι, ὃ νῦν 


Ν an 5 ΄ὕὔ / Ἔ ἌΣ Ν 5 x 
δὴ σαφῶς εἰδέναι διισχυρίζου: ποῖόν τι τὸ εὐσεβὲς 
φὴς εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἀσεβὲς καὶ περὶ φόνου καὶ περὶ τῶν 


Sd, x > Spal, 3 > ΄ ΄ eee! 
ἄλλων; ἢ od | ταὐτόν ἐστιν ἐν πάσῃ πράξει τὸ ὅσιον 


Seek ε “A ‘\ Ν 5 ΄, > “a \ ε ΄ὔ ἴω 
αὐυτο αυτῳ. και TO ανοσιον αὖ TOU μεν οσιου παν 


5 , SEX δὲ ε a 9 We? ΄ Ν 
TOVVYQVTLOV, AUTO OE αυτῳ ομοιον και EXOV μιαν τινα 


tioned qualities, as present to 
the minds of the interlocutors, 
though not there zz fersona. 
Cp. τούτους τοὺς συκοφάντας, 
Crito. 45 A, likewise scornful. 
— οὐδὲ δοκεῖ ὁρᾶν... κατεῖδεν : 
οὐδέ goes with ὁρᾶν. There is 
here a play on words, ὁρᾶν = 
‘espy,’ καθορᾶν = ‘see through.’ 
Cp Gore. 479 B;) 52408 525.5 
xata- has here the same force 
(‘throughout,’ ‘through and 
through,’ ‘from head to foot’), 
as in καταπεποίκιλται, 6 C. 
There may be a further point in 
the hint at ἐπιμελεῖσθαι contained 
in Μέλητος (Μέλητος ἀμελής !) ; 


see above on 2 D. 24. ὦστε: 
ΕΠ 927.4 Ga 14503) Ba 505, 
25. νῦν δή: just now. 26. ποῖόν 


τι: of what nature? But ποῖος 
alone often expresses a sense of 
‘contrast between the suggestion 
and the fact,’ sometimes humor- 
ous, sometimes ironical or indig- 
nant. — τὸ εὐσεβές = τὸ ὅσιον in 
the Euth. 28. ταὐτόν ἐστιν κτλ. : 
on ταὐτόν and ὅμοιον, see HA. 
773 ang. aa (τ 107Gb. 502. 2: 
on αὐτό, see HA. 688; G. 997. 
29. Tov μὲν ὁσίου πᾶν Tovvav- 
tlov: guzte the opposite of the 
holy. In Plato ὃ ἐναντίος, 


when applied to qualities, usu- 
ally is constr. with the gen. 
30. ἔχον μίαν τινὰ ἰδέαν κτλ. : 
‘possessing as a whole some one 
characteristic aspect in reference 
to its being unholiness.’ This 
is untechnical language. Cp. 
Meno 72 C οὕτω δὴ Kai περὶ TOV 
ἀρετῶν - κἂν εἰ πολλαὶ Kal παντο- 
δαπαί εἰσιν, ἕν γέ τι εἶδος ταὐτὸν 
ἅπασαι ἔχουσι, δι᾿ 6 εἰσιν ἀρεταί, 
Just so also in respect of the vir- 
tues : even though they be numer- 
ous and manifold, they yet possess 
one and all some one identical 
aspect in view of which they are 
virtues. There is here no refer- 
ence to hypostatized /deas ; 
only the definitional essence is 
required, in the common Socratic 
manner. No inference as to the 
date of the dialogue can be drawn 
from this usage, as it may occur 
in any work, even side by side 
with the more technical sense; 
cp. Rep. 435 B καὶ δίκαιος apa 
ἀνὴρ δικαίας πόλεως κατ᾽ αὐτὸ TO 
τῆς δικαιοσύνης εἶδος οὐδὲν διοί- 
σει, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμοιος ἔσται. The ef- 
forts to detect a significant dif- 
ference between εἶδος and ἰδέα 
have failed. Cp. ἰδέα, εἶδος, and 
poppy, Rep. 380 D. See App. 


5D 





5 D] 


EYOY®PON 


49 


ἰδέ Ν Ἁ 5 / a 7 ΕΥ , 
ἰδέαν κατὰ τὴν ἀνοσιότητα πᾶν, οτιπερ av μέλλῃ 


> ,ὔ δὲ 
ἀνόσιον εἰναι; 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Πάντως δήπου, ὦ Σώκρατες. 
VI. 30. Λέγε δή, τί φὴς εἶναι τὸ ὅσιον καὶ τὸ 


5 ’ 
QVOOLOPD ; 


Ἂ ’ ν Ν 9 © 
EY®. Λέγω τοίνυν, ὅτι TO μὲν ὅσιόν ἐστιν ὅπερ 


BN lal A las LO “ “Ἃ \ , x \ 
ἔγω νυν ποιω, τῳ QAOLKOVYTL Ἢ πέρι φόνους ἢ περὶ 


ε a Ν Ψ» ἊΨ» A , > , 
5 ἱερῶν κλοπὰς ἤ τι ἄλλο τῶν τοιούτων ἐξαμαρτάνοντι 


5D 


“ness. 


31. ὅτιπερ xTA.: ‘whatever 
is to be, is to pass for, unholy’; 
for μέλλῃ, see HA. 846; G.1254; 
B. 5332. 33. πάντως δήπου: a 
formula, expressing strong affir- 
mation, freq. in answers. 

VI. 1. λέγε δή : note δή (her) 
with the imv., as freq. Cp.7A, 
ΠΈΡΑ 12 10 (25), 13 E. 

First DEFINITION OF HOLI- 
NESS: ‘Holiness is doing as I 
am now doing.’ Socrates has 
endeavored to prepare the way 
for a definition of holiness by 
winning assent to the statement 


that there is in all cases of holi- 


ness a constant characteristic 
which is of the essence of holi- 
His next step is to seek 
to arrive at that constant and 
essential notion. Euthyphro 
does not see the significance of 
the principle he has admitted, 
and hence adduces what could 
at best be only a particular ex- 
emplification of holiness instead 
of disclosing the essence of holi- 
ness, as requested. His failure 
is not, however, without value. 
Had he better apprehended the 
procedure of definition, he could 
not have expressed so naively 
EUTHYPHRO — 4 


the popular notions which he 
entertained, and which are held 
by the unthinking even in our 
day. Before addressing him- 
self to the proposed definition, 
Socrates expresses his disbelief 
of the legends which impute 
unworthy actions to the gods, 
and suggests that this may be 
the reason of his being brought 
to trial for impiety. Moreover, 
it is no uncommon thing to have 
the respondent offer particular 
instances in lieu of the required 
general definition. Fritzsche 
(Proleg. ad Menon., Ὁ. 21, ἢ. 6) 
cites as examples J/eno 71 E, 
Theaet. 146 C, Lach. 190 ἘΣ 
Hipp. Ma. 287 E. Note that 
τοίνυν introduces a definition, as 
Inv), tae 
4. τῷ adikotvTe. . . ἐξαμαρτά- 
vovtt: the second part., with the 
dependent phrases ἢ περὶ φόνους 
ες τοιούτων, explains ἀδικοῦντι: 
ἀδικεῖν merely implies that the 
defendant committed the deed, 
whereas ἐξαμαρτάνειν adds the 
notion of culpability. The lan- 
guage is rather formal. 5. 4 τι 
ἄλλο: depends on περί, as does 
κλοπάς. 


50 


10 


5 


50 ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ [5D 


> , 9. ἘΞ ἈΝ “Δ Ψ. Sat. , ch le 
ἐπεξιέναι, ἐάντε πατὴρ ὧν τυγχάνῃ ἐάντε μήτηρ ἐάντε 
ΕΣ ε ἴω Ν Νὴ ἊΝ 5 / 5 , 5 Le 
ἄλλος | ὁστισοῦν, TO δὲ μὴ ἐπεξιέναι ἀνόσιον: ἐπεί, 
5 4 ~ lal 
ὦ Σώκρατες. θέασαι, ws μέγα σοι ἐρῶ τεκμήριον τοῦ 
/ ν ν » a \ 5» nO i [7 
νομίμου ὅτι οὕτως ἔχει, ὃ καὶ ἄλλοις ἤδη εἶπον, ὅτι 
A A 9 ΕΣ ο ,ὕ \ 
ταῦτα ὀρθῶς ἂν εἴη οὕτω γιγνόμενα, μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν 
lal > “- > x ε la) ΄ Ya τὶ \ 
τῷ ἀσεβοῦντι μηδ᾽ ἂν ὁστισοῦν τυγχάνῃ ὧν" αὐτοὶ 
i; » tA ’, ἊΝ ΄ lat 
yap οἱ ἄνθρωποι τυγχάνουσι νομίζοντες τὸν Δία τῶν 
~ ΕἾ ὃν ἊΝ an » 
θεῶν ἄριστον καὶ δικαιότατον, καὶ τοῦτον ὁμολογοῦσι 
a A Ψ \ Cua 
τὸν | αὑτοῦ πατέρα δῆσαι, OTL TOUS υἱεῖς κατέπινεν οὐκ 
ἐν δίκῃ, κἀκεῖνόν γε αὖ τὸν αὑτοῦ πατέρα ἐκτεμεῖν Ov 
Ψ i an 3 \ \ ͵΄ Ψ a \ 
ἕτερα τοιαῦτα᾽ ἐμοὶ δὲ χαλεπαίνουσιν, OTL τῷ πατρὶ 


6. ἐπεξιέναι : epexegetic inf., 
here, as usual, without the art. 
Cp. 11 A φιλεῖσθαι, Meno 80 A 
ναρκᾶν, Phaedo 61 A ποιεῖν ; but 
Phaedo 92 Α τὸ 
7. ἀνόσιον: in the pred., while 
τὸ ὅσιον. above, is subj. — ἐπεί: 
causal, GMT. 718. Gp. (Gore. 
473 E οὐκ ole ἐξεληλέγχθαι, ὦ 
Σώκρατες, ὅταν τοιαῦτα λέγῃς. ἃ 
οὐδεὶς ἂν φήσειεν ἀνθρώπων ; 
ἐπεὶ ἐροῦ τινα τουτωνί. Don't 
you think you have been refuted, 
Socrates, when you are driven 
to say things that no living man 
would say? For — why, ask 
any one of those here present! 
8. τοῦ νομίμου ὅτι οὕτως ἔχει: 
prolepsis, HA. 878. τὸ νόμιμον 
is almost identical with τὸ ὅσιον, 
as the verb νομίζειν expresses 
the attitude of the orthodox be- 
liever (see note on 3 B, above). 
Cp. Phaedo 108 A ἀπὸ τῶν ὁσίων 
τε Kal νομίμων τῶν ἐνθάδε τεκ- 
μαιρόμενος λέγω; Legg. 861 Ὁ 
οὐ γὰρ ἂν νόμιμον οὐδ᾽ ὅσιον 


εἰναι. 


ἂν εἴη. Euthyphro reverts to 
νομίμου in νομίζοντες, 1. 12. 
9. ὅτι ταῦτα ὀρθῶς ἂν εἴη: de- 
pends on εἶπον, ‘I told others 
too ere now that this would be 
right if done in this manner’ 
(οὕτω γιγνόμενα, cond., GMT. 
472, 841). το. μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν : 
sc. ἀσεβεῖν. explains οὕτως ἔχει. 
14. κατέπινεν οὐκ ἐν δίκῃ: 
‘gulped down, and unjustly, too,’ 
imperf. of repeated action. οὐκ 
ἐν δίκῃ is an emphatic ἀδίκως, 
receiving further stress from its 
position. The drastic κατέπινεν 
is a quot. from Hes. Zheog. 459 
Kal TOUS μὲν κατέπινε μέγας 
Κρόνος. Cronus swallowed his 
children, because he knew that 
his son was destined to be the 
ruler of heavenandearth. 15. κἀ- 
κεῖνόν ye αὖ: av, 27 turn. The 
story is told by Hes. 7heog. 154 ff. 
Uranus feared his sons, the Ti- 
tans, and thrust them into Tarta- 
rus. Cronus lay in wait for him, 
and mutilated him with a sickle. 


5E 


6A 


6A 


“with each other 


6A] 


EY@YbPQN 


51 


ΓῚ ΄ὕ΄ LO “ Ν Y > ἈΝ ε “ ‘ 
ἐπεξέρχομαι ἀδικοῦντι, καὶ οὕτως αὐτοὶ αὑτοῖς τὰ 
» , , / lal “ na 
ἐναντία λέγουσι περι TE τῶν θεῶν καὶ περὶ ἐμοῦ. 


ΣΩ. 


"> , > nw . 
"Apa γε, ὦ Εὐθύφρον. τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, οὕνεκα τὴν 


\ , ν Ἂς a 5 / Ἂν A 
γραφὴν φεύγω, ὅτι τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπειδάν τις περὶ τῶν 
θεῶν λέγῃ. δυσχερῶς πως ἀποδέχομαι; διὸ δή, ὡς 


» ’ 7 5 ’ὔ 
ἔοικε. φήσει τίς με ἐξαμαρτάνειν. 


17. avrol... 
express 


περὶ ἐμοῦ : ‘they 
opinions inconsistent 
in approving 
the actions of the gods and con- 
demning mine.’ The fifth cen- 
tury B.C. was a period of transi- 
tion. The foundations of the 
old faith were crumbling, and a 
moralized creed was supplanting 
it. Xenophanes and Pindar had 
been aware of the unworthy 
character of the gods, as _por- 
trayed in the mythology, and 
had protested against the myths. 
Aeschylus set himself to rein- 
terpret them in a sense conform- 
able to his higher moral ideal. 
Sophocles remained neutral, and 
Euripides seems to have favored 
now the old, now the newer 
creed. Aristophanes carped at 
the new, without supporting the 
old. Among the men of great- 
est enlightenment, Socrates and 
Plato mark the virtual overthrow 
of the old polytheism. The mul- 
titude, however, seem to have 
been but lightly touched by the 
reformation. Euthyphro, as a 
man of the people, does not 
question the traditional faith. 
See Gomperz, Grech. Denker, 
II. 1 ff. Cp. the interesting dis- 
cussion in Auct. ad Herenn. 2. 
25. 39: 20. ὅτι τὰ τοιαῦτα: 


fal > > \ \ 
νυν OUVV ει και σοι 


note the hyperbaton, HA. 1062. 
21. δυσχερῶς πως ἀποδέχομαι: 7} 
scruple to accept ; for this sense 
of δυσχερῶς, see Polit. 294 A 
ἔμελλον yap σε διερωτήσειν ταῦτα 
πότερον ἀποδέχῃ πάντα. ἤ τι καὶ 
δυσχεραίνεις τῶν λεχθέντων and 
Eur. AZed. 733 μῶν οὐ πέποιθας ; 
ἢ τί σοι TO δυσχερές; In such 
connections πῶς, as the adv. to 
the indef. pron. τις, limits its 
adv., and here renders it more 
emphatic; see note on ov πάνυ 
τι, 2 B. The early Christian 
Fathers inveighed passionately 
against the immoralities imputed 
in Greek mythology to the su- 
preme gods; but they added 
nothing to the protests of the 
ancient Greeks themselves (cp. 
Plat. Rep. 377 E ff., 408 C; 
Isocr. 11. 38 and Eur. fassznz). 
Eur. (7. 294. 7) made bold to 
say εἰ θεοί τι δρῶσιν αἰσχρόν. οὐκ 
εἰσὶν θεοί, Lf gods do aught that’s 
base, no gods are they. Cp. Rep. 
408 C ἡμεῖς δὲ κατὰ τὰ προειρη- 
μένα οὐ π πειθόμεθα αὐτοῖς ἀμφό- 
τέρα, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν θεοῦ (se. υἱὸς) 
HV, οὐκ HV, φήσομεν. αἰσχροκερ- 
δής. εἰ δ᾽ αἰσχροκερδής. οὐκ ἣν 
θεοῦ. 22. εἰ καὶ σοί κτλ. : note 
the redundancy of expression. 
Where two persons are juxta- 
posed, καί is often placed with 


6A 


30 


6A 


ILAATONOS [6A 


“ A nn i 5 , \ “ 4 τὶ ’ 
ταυτα ξυνδοκεῖ TW €U | εἰδότι πέρι των TOLOUTWY, αναγ- 
τί γὰρ καὶ 

΄ ν 5 Δ a Ν aya \ 
φήσομεν, οἵ γε αὐτοὶ ὁμολογοῦμεν περὶ αὐτῶν μηδὲν 


Kn δή, ὡς ἔοικε, καὶ ἡμῖν ξυγχωρεῖν. 


εἰδέναι; ἀλλά μοι εἰπὲ πρὸς Φιλίου, σὺ ὡς ἀληθῶς 


ἡγεῖ ταῦτα οὕτως γεγονέναι; 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Καὶ ἔτι γε τούτων θαυμασιώτερα, ὦ Σώ- 


ἃ ε Ν 5 » 
κρατες, ἃ οἱ πολλοὶ οὐκ ισασιν. 


Fes N , » ε la Ν i a »” 3 
ΣΩ. Kat πόλεμον apa nyer σὺ εἶναι τῳ οντὶ ἐν 


τοῖς θεοῖς πρὸς ἀλλήλους, καὶ ἔχθρας γε δεινὰς καὶ 


each, as in rel. clauses with ὅσπερ 
and ὥσπερ. Here the ξυν- in 
ξυνδοκεῖ further reénforces καί 
Cp. Polit. 277 A δεῖ 
δὲ μὴ σοὶ μόνῳ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ κἀμοὶ 
μετὰ σοῦ κοινῇ συνδοκεῖν. Note 
reduplication of the neg., 4 D 
above, of ye, 13 E, and of ai, 
14 E. See Frohberger, Lys. 14: 
24. (ἌἌΡΡ-.); 19. 4(App-)-) On 
ἡμῖν = ἐμοί, see GS. 54. 

24. τί yap καὶ φήσομεν : 771- 
deed, what am 7 ἐο say? See note 
on 3 A, 1. 4. 25. αὐτοί: prob. 
goes with εἰδέναι, though it may 
belong to ὁμαλογοῦμεν. --- μηδὲν 
εἰδέναι : we might have expected 
ovo acc. to ΜᾺ. 9.0 GG, 
τ6 11: μι see (GIT Ves. 
Cp. 12 Β αἰδεῖσθαι δὲ pdr. 
26. ἀλλά: ‘nay,’ freq. with imv. 
Cp. 14 10. --- πρὸς Φιλίου : se. 
Διός, ‘by Zeus, patron god 
of friendship.’ As here, Gorg. 
500) Ὁ; 5 EGE Cp. Waar. 
234 E πρὸς Διὸς φιλίου. --- ὡς 
ἀληθῶς: ὡς in this connection 
seems to be the abl. of the 
art., and ὡς ἀληθῶς almost 
= τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. But see Kriiger, 


Gr. Sprachl. 69. 63.8. Schanz 


΄ 
- Και. 


gives the formula ἀληθῶς : ὡς 
ἀληθῶς :: ἀληθείᾳ: τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. 
He also notes that Plato, who 
affected the phrase, ceased to 
employ it in his latest works 
(Piuil., Pol.,, Tim., Lege) ΒΤ 
used ἀληθῶς with ἀληθείᾳ and τῇ 
ἀληθείᾳ instead. 29. ἃ οἱ πολλοὶ 
οὐκ ἴσασιν : as μάντις, Euthyphro 
lays claim to recondite knowl- 
edge of things divine not shared 
by the profanum vulgus. His 
source of information was doubt- 
less the Orphic writings (see 
Isocr. 11. 38 f., Lobeck, Ag/ao- 
phanus 1. 602). 80. καὶ 
καὶ... τε. -. καί: the καί before 
πόλεμον is Continuative; τε after 
λέγεται is correlative with the 
next καί; and τε in τά τε ἄλλα 
is correlative with καὶ δὴ καί. --- 
apa: for postponement of dpa, 
cp. Gorg. 472 D, 476 A (zs). 
— τῷ ὄντι: 7271 reality. HA. 
779 Ὁ. This formula alone, as 
Schanz has shown, occurs in 
Plato’s earliest works, and in 
the latest works gives place to 
ὄντως, with which it alternates 
in the intermediate group of 
dialogues, 


6B 


6C] 


EY@Y®POQN 


59 


” a Ὄ \ A 
μάχας καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα πολλά, οἷα λέγεταί τε ὑπὸ τῶν 


‘ a NGG. oN a > a ΄ / » 
ποιητῶν, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγαθῶν γραφέων τά τε | ἄλλα 


35 


6Ρ 





-οἰκείους αὐτῶν. 


‘some have understood it. 


« ἊΝ ε “a 7 ἊΝ Ν \ ae / 
LEepa HLL καταπεποίκιλται, καὶ δὴ καὶ τοις μεγάλοις 


/ ¢ , lo 
Παναθηναίοις ὁ πέπλος μεστὸς τῶν τοιούτων ποικιλ- 


4 5 / > XN 5 / » 5 wn 
μάτων ἀνάγεται εἰς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν; ταῦτα ἀληθῆ 


φῶμεν εἶναι, ὦ ὐθύφρον ; 


. καταπεποίκιλται: 


28lo καὶ -᾿. 


‘we might have expected οἵοις 


after καί to conform to ota above ; 
but Plato begins here to break 
with his first constr., which he 
wholly abandons at καὶ δὴ καί. 
Cp. Rep. 378 C πολλοῦ δεῖ γιγαν- 
Topaxias TE μυθολογητέον αὐτοῖς 
καὶ TOLKLATEOV, Kal ἄλλας ἔχθρας 
πολλὰς καὶ παντοδαπὰς θεῶν τε 
καὶ ἡρώων πρὸς συγγενεῖς τε καὶ 
κατα- suggests 
that the ornamentation is ex- 
tensive and thoroughly done. 
- ἀγαθῶν : slightly ironical. 
34. ἱερά: means ‘sacred ob- 
jects’ in general, not temples, as 
This 
is shown by the collocation τά 
τε ἄλλα ἱερὰ . . - Kal δὴ Kal... 
ὃ πέπλος. --- καὶ δὴ kai: see note 
on 2 D. —rois μεγάλοις Tlavaby- 
ναίοις : for the dat., see HA. 782; 
G. 1192; B. 385. The festival 
of the Panathenaea was the most 
ancient and most important held 
at Athens. It was celebrated 
yearly, but from the time of 
Pisistratus the Great Panathe- 
naea were held in the third year 
of every Olympiad, in the month 
of Hecatombaeon (July-August). 
The occasion commemorated the 
union of Attica under Theseus, 


and was sacred to Athene, the 
patron deity of Athens, on whose 
traditional birthday, the 28th of 
the month, the festivities culmi- 
nated in a grand procession to 
the Acropolis. The representa- 
tion of this procession on the 
frieze of the Parthenon is justly 
celebrated. All the free inhab- 
itants of the city participated in 
it, and escorted to the temple 
of the goddess on the Acropolis 
the splendid saffron-colored robe, 
the feplus. This garment had 
been begun nine months before 
by four virgins (ἀορηφύροι). and 
was richly embroidered by skill- 
ful maidens and matrons (€pya- 
otivac) with representations of 
the battle of the Giants and other 
scenes in which the goddess fig- 
ured prominently. The feplus 
was carried at the head of the 
procession, spread on yards as a 
sail for a ship, which was moved 
on wheels, and was then draped 
about the statue of Athene Polias 
in the Erechtheum. See Frazer's 
Pausanias 2. 574. 36. avdye- 


ται: ἀνα- because the Acropolis, 
as its name implies. is high 


ground; ἄγεται because of the 
procession accompanying the 


peplus. Cp. also ep. 327 A. 


6C 


40 


10 


o€ 


ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ [6C 


54 


> 9 7 
EYO. Μὴ μόνον ye, ὦ Σώκρατες" ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ ἄρτι 
= Naey See 7 5. , ; \ 
εἶπον, καὶ ἄλλα σοι ἐγὼ πολλά, ἐάνπερ βούλῃ. περὶ 
τῶν θείων διηγήσομαι, ἃ σὺ ἀκούων εὖ οἷδ᾽ ὅτι 

ἐκπλαγήσει. 

WARE 

> > 5 \ an , \ θ᾿ Ψ 
μοι εἰς αὖθις ἐπὶ σχολῆς διηγήσει" νυνὶ δέ, ὅπερ 
οὐ γάρ 


e, | ὦ ἑταῖρε. τὸ πρότερον ἱκανῶς ἐδίδαξας ἐρωτή- 
μέ; Pe βοτερ Ἶ 


ΣΩ. Οὐκ ἂν θαυμάζοιμι. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μέν 


ἄρτι σε ἠρόμην, πειρῶ σαφέστερον εἰπεῖν. 


σαντα τὸ ὅσιον, ὅτι ποτ᾽ εἴη, ἀλλά μοι εἶπες, ὅτι 
τοῦτο τυγχάνει ὅσιον ὄν, ὃ σὺ νῦν ποιεῖς, φόνου 
ἐπεξιὼν τῷ πατρί. 

ΕΥ̓Θ. Καὶ ἀληθῆ γε ἔλεγον, ὦ Σώκρατες. 

30. “Iows. 
πολλὰ φὴς εἶναι ὅσια. 


ἀλλὰ γάρ, ὦ Βὐθύφρον, καὶ adda 


EY®. Καὶ γὰρ ἔστιν. 
SQ. Μέμνησαι οὖν, ὅτι οὐ τοῦτό σοι διεκελευόμην, 
ἕν τι ἢ δύο με διδάξαι τῶν πολλῶν ὁσίων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνο 
2» SS Ν io OQ , WG Y ΨΚ », 
αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος, ᾧ πάντα τὰ ὅσια ὅσιά ἐστιν; ἔφησθα 


38. μὴ μόνον (sc. ταῦτά) γε γήσει. 2. διηγήσει : jussive fut., 


(sc. abi): μή is deprecatory, 
RD. ὃ 136; for μὴ μόνον γε... 
agAAd, see RD. § 157.— ἄρτι: 
refers to 6 B. 39. περὶ τῶν 
θείων: here almost = περὶ τῶν 
θεῶν, which text is implied in the 
Armenian Version. 40. εὖ οἶδ᾽ 
certainly, HA. 1049. I a. 
Here εὖ οἶδα is parenthetical, 
and ὅτι is superfluous. Cp. 
Afpol. 37 B ὧν εὖ οἷδ᾽ ὅτι κακῶν 
ὄντων and Dem. 9. 1 
οἷδ᾽ ὅτι φηφάντων γ᾽ ἄν. and see 
Frohberger on Lys. 13. 9 (ΑΡΡ.)- 

VII. 1. οὐκ ἂν θαυμάζοιμι: 7 
should not be surprised. Note that 
Socrates does zot deny ἐκπλα- 


oe 
OTL: 


πάντων 


HA. 844: G. 1265; ΒΒ  πἡ- 
GMT.69. 5. ὅτι ποτ᾽ εἴη : seenote 
on 3 Ὁ. 8. ἔλεγοῦ: GMT. 57. 
9. ἀλλὰ γάρ: introduces an ob- 
jection ; yap is not for, HA. τοξο. 
4d; B. 441, N. 2; RD τ 
The collocation is common. Cp. 
9C,14 B. 14. εἶδος. -- ἰδέα : see 
noteon5 D. Here the terms are 
evidently identical in meaning. 
It is the notion that is desired, — 
the conception, or the essential 
characteristic in virtue of which 
things are, and are called, what 
they are. Here ἐκεῖνο αὐτὸ τὸ 
εἶδος and ταύτην . . . αὐτὴν. .. 
τὴν ἰδέαν, below, 1. 18, have no 





15 


20 


25 
6D 


6 ΕἸ 


EYOY®PON 


55 


, Les iS 7. ΄, 5 ΄ὔ 5 / > Ν Ν 
yap TOU μιᾷ ὑ εᾳ Τα TE ανοσια AVOOLA εἰναι και TA | 


ν ν “Ὁ 
ὅσια ὅσια: ἢ οὐ μνημονεύεις ; 


ΕΥΘ. "Eyoye. 


, δ 
ΣΩ. Ταύτην τοίνυν με αὐτὴν δίδαξον τὴν ἰδέαν, 


’ὔ΄ f/ 3 ν 9 > ’ 5» » 
τις ποτε ἐστιν, WA ELS EKELVY)V ἀποβλέπων 
> io. 7 aA Ν a lal 
VOS avTy) παραδείγματι, O μὲν ἂν TOLOUTOV 


καὶ χρώμε- 


WE, » x 
ἢ. ὧν av ἢ 


Ν xX » , “ ν > a > x Ν 
σὺ ἢ ἄλλος τις πράττῃ, φῶ ὅσιον εἶναι, ὃ δ᾽ ἂν μὴ 
᾿ τοιοῦτον, μὴ φῶ. 


ΕΥ̓Θ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ οὕτω βούλει, ὦ 


σοι φράσω. 


> 


τ, νὸν 
ξώκρατές, καὶ OUTW 


ΣΩ. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν βούλομαί γε. 


reference to hypostatized Ideas 
(see note on 5 D), but αὐτός 
marks the notion as at once es- 
sential and by itself, that is, ds- 
tinguished from all else. 

19. εἰς ἐκείνην ἀποβλέπων κτλ. : 
looking to it and employing tt as 
a model. ἀποβλέπω in untech- 
nical language means ‘to have 
regard to,’ ‘to glance at’; cp. 
Ἔσο 115 C, Symp. 220 E. 


_Here the notion is only a norm 


serviceable as a test to insure 
correct thinking. Cp. Gorg. 
474 Ὁ τί δὲ τόδε τὰ καλὰ πάντα 
.. . εἰς οὐδὲν ἀποβλέπων καλεῖς 
ἑκάστοτε καλά: “ But, sir, —all 
objects of beauty, do you not 
look to some model and so pro- 
nounce them beautiful on each 
occasion?’ Seealso Gorg. 503 D, 
Meno 72C. But the figure of 
the παράδειγμα played a large 
part in Plato’s thought. For him 
the object of thought and ‘ being’ 
or ‘ reality ’ are of necessity iden- 
tical; hence, by a natural infer- 
ence, the norm of true thinking 


becomes the absolutely real. 
This is the foundation for the 
traditional Theory of Ideas. 
Good instances of the technical 
use of παράδειγμα are Pari. 
132 10, Rep. 472 C, and 77m. 
28 A; but the untechnical mean- 
ing may be found in any dia- 
logue, as e.g. Legg. 630 C. Note 
that ἐκείνην and αὐτῇ refer to the 
same object, RD. ὃ 49. Usually 
ἐκεῖνος is employed for second 
mention, as in 14 D, but in- 
stances of the reverse order are 
not infrequent. Cp. Frohberger 
On Lys: 414.728 (App): “Bor 
constr. of παραδείγματι. see HA. 
777 a. 20. ὧν: for τούτων 4, 
HA. 996; G. 1032. 24. φράσω: 
‘will declare, make clear.’ Cp. 
10 A ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ πειράσομαι σα- 
φέστερον φράσαι and 6C πειρῶ 
σαφέστερον εἰπεῖν. 25. ἀλλὰ 
poy... ye: ‘but, indeed, I do 
wish.’ 

SECOND DEFINITION: ‘What 
is agreeable to the gods is holy; 
what is not, is unholy.’ 


6E 


7A 


56 


ΠΛΑΤΩ͂ΝΟΣ 


[6E 


ΕΥΘ. Ἔστι τοίνυν τὸ μὲν Tots θεοῖς προσφιλὲς 
ὅσιον, τὸ δὲ μὴ | προσφιλὲς ἀνόσιον. 
ΣΩ. Παγκάλως, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, καὶ ὡς ἐγὼ ἐζήτουν 


,; 4 ν al 2) ἊΣ 
ἀποκρίνασθαί σε, οὕτω νῦν ἀπεκρίνω. 


5 rd 
εἰ μέντοι 


ἀληθές, τοῦτο οὔπω οἶδα, ἀλλὰ σὺ δῆλον ὅτι ἐπεκδι- 
δάξεις, ws ἔστιν ἀληθῆ ἃ λέγεις. 


EYO. Πάνυ μὲν οὖν. 
ΠΗ 


ΣΩ. Φέρε δή, ἐπισκεψώμεθα, τί λέγομεν. 


τὸ μὲν θεοφιλές τε καὶ ὁ θεοφιλὴς ἄνθρωπος ὅσιος, 


Ν Ni Ν AG Ἂν 5 i 
TO δὲ θεομισὲς και O θεομισὴς aVOOLOS* 


> San > 
OU TQUTOV ὃ 


5 ΄ > \ N > ΄ Ων Ψ na 3 ΄ὕ 
ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐναντιώτατον TO ὁσιον τῷ ἀνοσίῳ" 


> CO » 
οὐχ οὕτως (ELPNTAL) ; 


EY®. Οὕτω μὲν οὖν. 


ΣΩ. Καὶ εὖ γε φαίνεται εἰρῆσθαι; | 


27. ph: HA. 1026; G. 1613; 
B. 431.1. 28. παγκάλως : καλῶς 
and similar words are oftenest 
used to express approval of the 
substance of a statement, as 9 E, 
ΤΣ ἘΠ and m5 (δ. below: 7x07 
352 D, Phaedo 79 D, and Gorg. 
454 D, where καλῶς = ὀρθῶς or 
ἀληθῶς. Here, however, it is 
intended merely to commend the 
form of the definition, though 
it later proves untenable (cp. 
εἰ μέντοι ἀληθές). Euthyphro 
avoids his previous error of de- 
fining an universal bya particular; 
but, as we shall presently see, he 
is now guilty of what logicians call 
the erroneous conversion of an 
universal proposition. 30. ἐπεκ- 
διδάξεις : ‘you will follow up and 
complete your evidence that 
what you say is true.’ Con- 
trast δίδαξον, 1. 18. Cp. Prot. 
325 ἘΣ 


VIII. 1. τί λέγομεν: cp. τί 
λέγει. 9 E. The question asked is 
whether what ts said be true or 
false; cp. the phrases, τὶ λέγειν 
‘to speak truth,’ οὐδὲν λέγειν, ‘ to 
say what is not true,’ and IL 

Ma. 296 A ὡς φοβοῦμαι. τί ποτ᾽ 
αὖ λέγομεν, ‘I am greatly con- 
cerned whether what we now 
say be true or false.’ Probably 
τί δὴ οὖν λέγομεν περὶ τοῦ ὁσίου, 
10 C, is to be understood in the 
same sense. 38. 
τὸ ἐναντιώτατον : both words in 
pred., but the former regularly 
has the art., the latter often, esp. 
when, as here, it = the diametri- 
cal opposite; cp. πᾶν τοὐναντίον, 
5D. Note the postponement of 
δέτο third place, possibly to avoid 
ov δέ, as Schanz suggests, though 
Be combination does occur, as 

g. Rep. 328 C. 5. οὐχ οὕτως 
ae ἘΡΞ ἘΠ). 


ταὐτόν 





ww 


Io 


= 


7C] EYOYOPQN 57 


EYO. Δοκῶ, ὦ Σώκρατες. [εἴρηται yap. | 

ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν καὶ ὅτι στασιάζουσιν οἱ θεοί, ὦ Εὐθίύ- 

Ν la 

pov, καὶ διαφέρονται ἀλλήλοις καὶ ἔχθρα ἐστὶν ἐν 
αὐτοῖς πρὸς ἀλλήλους, καὶ τοῦτο εἴρηται; 

EYO. Εἴρηται γάρ. 

" > ΄ 

30. Ἔχθραν δὲ καὶ ὀργάς. ὦ ἄριστε, ἡ περὶ τίνων 

ὃ Ν σι δ ὃ δὲ ΡῈ ee rer > 
ιαφορὰ ποιεῖ; ὧδε δὲ σκοπῶμεν. ap ἂν εἰ διαφε- 


’ὔ Ν lal 
ροίμεθα ἐγώ τε Kal σὺ περὶ ἀριθμοῦ. ὁπότερα πλείω. 


ΕΘ Ν , ὃ Ν > θ Ν Xv ε lad a Ν 
ἢ περὶ τούτων διαφορὰ ἐχθροὺς av ἡμᾶς ποιοῖ καὶ 


20 


7B 


_ from the disposition, ἔχθρα. 





ὀργίζεσθαι ἀλλήλοις. ἢ ἐπὶ λογισμὸν ἐλθόντες περί 


το. ἀλλήλοις: 


γε τῶν τοιούτων ταχὺ ἂν | ἀπαλλαγεῖμεν; 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Πάνυ γε. 


> Los ἴων 
ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν καὶ περὶ τοῦ μείζονος καὶ ἐλάττονος 
5 ὃ ἊΨ» A 3 Ν Ἂς “Ὁ 5 δ, Ἦν 
εἰ διαφεροίμεθα, ἐπὶ τὸ μετρεῖν ἐλθόντες ταχὺ παυ- 


σαίμεθ᾽ ἂν τῆς διαφορᾶς; 


8. δοκῶ: here = δοκεῖ μοι, 727 
seems 50 10 216. There are numer- 
ous examples; as, ¢.g., ep. 473 
D, 554 B. The Greek tended 
strongly to use pers. expressions 
for impers. See note on 14 B. 
ΕΑ 72> Ge 1075.5 
B. 392. Contrast HA. 748; G. 
1117; B. 362.1. 12. εἴρηται γάρ: 
in 6A ff. yap is often thus used in 
brief answers. Cp. καὶ yap ἔστιν 
6D. 13. ἔχθραν δὲ καὶ ὀργάς: 
noteworthy, because such expres- 
sions are usually assimilated to 
the same number: here ὀργαί are 
probably conceived as particu- 
lar outbursts of passion resulting 
Cp. 
Eur. Wed. 1150 ὀργὰς ἀφήρει καὶ 
χόλον νεάνιδος. 14. ap av... 
av: for repetition of ἄν, see 
ἘἨᾺ. 864: G. 1312; B. 439, N. 2; 


GS. 467. 15. ὁπότερα πλείω: 
plur., because several aggregates 
are compared, and the decision is 


reached by reducing them to 
number. 17. 74: does not here 


introduce the second part of a 
double question proper. We 
should say, ‘should we not 
rather, etc. The second clause 
excludes the first. — περί ye: 
for position of γε: see HA. 1037. 
Ia. 20. περὶ τοῦ μείζονος καὶ 
ἐλάττονος : the terms are corre- 
lates and together make out the 
single notion, szze; hence the art. 
isnot repeated. Soin. 25, περὶ 
τοῦ βαρυτέρου TE καὶ κουφοτέρου. 
2.6. weight, 8 D περὶ τῶν δικαίων 
καὶ ἀδίκων. When the art. 
repeated the substantives are 
viewed as independent of each 
other, or they may be contrasted. 


is 


QO 


7B 


25 


30 


40 


58 TIAATOQNOS [70 


EYO. Ἔστι ταῦτα. 

ΣΩ. Καὶ ἐπί γε τὸ ἱστάναι ἐλθόντες, ὡς ἐγῴμαι, 
περὶ τοῦ βαρυτέρου τε καὶ κουφοτέρου διακριθει- 
μεν av ; 

EY®. Πῶς yap οὔ; 

ΣΩ. Περὶ τίνος δὲ δὴ διενεχθέντες καὶ ἐπὶ τίνα 
κρίσιν οὐ δυνάμενοι ἀφικέσθαι ἐχθροί γε ἂν ἀλλήλοις 
> » 
εἶμεν καὶ ὀργιζοίμεθα; ἴσως οὐ πρόχειρόν σοί ἐστιν, 
5 eS) “ - / > / 5 Ν / / 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐμοῦ λέγοντος | σκόπει, εἰ τάδε ἐστὶ τό τε δίκαιον 

\ XN »” IN N ἊΝ 5 Ἂν Ν b) Ἂς x 
Kal TO ἄδικον καὶ καλὸν Kal αἰσχρὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ 
κακόν. ἄρα οὐ ταῦτά ἐστιν, περὶ ὧν διενεχθέντες καὶ 

5 ἦ SEN (- Ν / 5» in > “A 5 Ἂν 
οὐ δυνάμενοι ἐπὶ ἱκανὴν κρίσιν αὐτῶν ἐλθεῖν ἐχθροὶ 
5 uy / ν ’ὔ’ ‘\ 5 ~ Ν x 
ENGNG: γιγνόμεθα, ὅταν γιγνώμεθα, καὶ ἐγὼ καὶ σὺ 
καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἂν θρωποι πάντες; 

EY®O. 


\ 
και περὶ τούτων. 


ἊΝ 


ὦ Σώκρατες, 


"ANN ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ διαφορα, 


SQ. Τί δὲ οἱ θεοί, ὦ Εὐθύφρον; οὐκ εἴπερ τι δια- 
φέρονται, διὰ ταῦτα διαφέροιντ᾽ ἀν; 


Seedsruger, 58. 2: Ὁ; Daze 
Note ο C τὸ ὅσιον καὶ μή, 15 E τά 
τε ὅσια καὶ μή, 12 E τά τε εὐσεβῆ 
καὶ ὅσια καὶ τὰ μή. 22. τῆς δια- 
Φορας: ΗΠ. δ: (5 ni: 
362. 

24. τὸ weighing. 
Usually the verb has some addi- 


abs., see τόδε δέ σου ἐνενόησα 
ἅμα λίγοντος. 9 C.— τό τε δίκαιον 

. καὶ κακόν : in appos. with 
τάδε. For the omission of the 
B. art., see note above onl. 20. Cp. 
Gorg. 450 D οἷον ἡ ἀριθμητικὴ 
Kal λογιστικὴ καὶ γεωμετρικὴ καὶ 
πεττευτική γε καὶ ἄλλαι πολλαὶ 


ἱστάναι : 


tion, such as ζυγῷ, ἐπὶ ζυγοῦ. ἐν τέχναι. For the thought, cp. dé. 
τῷ ζυγῷ. or σταθμῷ As here, L111 Eff. 35. ὅταν γιγνώμεθα: 


Ar. Pax, 1249. 28. περὶ τίνος not quite, but almost = ἑκάστοτε. 


δὲ... καὶ ἐπὶ τίνα κρίσιν: HA. The limitation is important, since 
1o12; G. 1601. Thephrase ἐπὶ it is quite possible to differ with- 
τίνα κρίσιν = ἐπὶ Tivos κρίσιν by out hatred. 37. αὕτη: in the 
a transference quite common in pred. δΔη6 -- τοιαύτη. 39. τί δὲ 
Lat.; cp. οὖ eam iram, Livy ot θεοί: ‘but what of the 
21. 52, and similar examples. gods?’ Cp. τί δὲ ἡ ναυπηγοῖς 
31. ἐμοῦ λέγοντος: for the gen. ὑπηρετική; 13 D, and Afol. 25 A 





ἢ 
; 





45 


50 


55 


7D 


8 ΑἹ 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Πολλὴ ἀνάγκη. 


ΕΥ̓ΘΥΦΡΩΝ 


Ὁ 9 


r \ “ “ »” 5 wn 

32. Καὶ τῶν θεῶν apa, ὦ γενναῖε | Εὐθύφρον, 
»” »” ΄ ε a \ N \ ΄, \ 
ἄλλοι ἄλλα δίκαια ἡγοῦνται κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον, Kal 

Ν ἊΝ 5 Ν Ν 5 Ἂν Ν / 

καλὰ καὶ αἰσχρὰ καὶ ἀγαθὰ καὶ κακά: ov yap av που 
> i 3 / 5 Ν Ν 4 f. 
ἐστασίαζον ἀλλήλοις, εἰ μὴ περὶ τούτων διεφέροντο" 


ἦ γάρ; 
ΕΥ̓Θ. ᾿Ορθῶς λέγεις. 


> an Y Ne “ 4 ee) Ν 
ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν απερ καλὰ ἡγοῦνται ἕκαστοι καὶ ἀγαθὰ 
Ν δί “ Ν “ δ Ne , , 

και OLKALA, TAVTA KQL φιλοῦσιν, TQ δὲ EVAVTLA TOUTWYV 


μισοῦσιν; 
ΕΥ̓Θ. Πάνυ γε. 


ΣΩ. Ταὐτὰ δέ γε, ὡς σὺ φῇς, οἱ μὲν δίκαια ἡγοῦν- 

ε Ν » NA Ν > an 
Tal, οἱ δὲ ἀδικα" περὶ ἃ Kal ἀμφισβητοῦντες | στα- 
σιάζουσί τε καὶ πολεμοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις. ἄρα οὐχ οὕτω; 


ΕγΘ. Οὕτω. 


- “A Sy 51 ε » A (Tae a θ al 
ΣΩ. Tavt apa, ws εοικεν, μισεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν 


καὶ φιλεῖται, καὶ θεομισῆ τε καὶ θεοφιλῆ ταὔτ᾽ ἂν εἴη. 


τί δὲ οἱ βουλευταί; τί δέ here is 
akin to the usage seen in 4A 
and 8B. Cp. also τίδὲ δή, 14 A. 


-— εἴπερ τι διαφέρονται : note the 


restriction, which is regular with 
εἴπερ ; it implies disbelief of the 
alleged dissensions among the 
gods. Cp. the clauses with εἴπερ 
in8 DE. The clause states the 
general hypothesis, and διαφέ- 
powr av is the apod. of a 
particular ideal supposition, not 
expressed, which is based upon 
It. Cp. Afol.29 Ὁ. See note 
on ταὔτ᾽ ἂν εἴη. 8 A. 

41. πολλὴ ἀνάγκη: Plato is 
fond of reénforcing ἀνάγκη. in 
the manner of colloquial speech, 
with such words as ἅπασα (Rep. 


381 C), πᾶσα (Phaedo 67 A), and 


peyarn (Rep. 485 E), besides 
πολλή. Which occurs most freq. 
43. ἄλλοι ἄλλα: HA. 704 a. 
246. ἢ γάρ; “15 it) mot 505. 
52. ταὐτὰ δέ γε: ye belongs to 
ταὐτά, yielding its normal posi- 
tion to δέ. Other instances of 
dé ye are 10 E, 13 B, 14 A. 
57. ταὔτ᾽ ἂν εἴη: for accent of 
ταῦτ᾽, see HA. 107; G. 120. 
The opt. is potential; the defer- 
ential hesitation is assumed in 
the interest of urbanity, not to 
express a real doubt. Cp. 13 Ὁ 
ὑπηρετική Tis ἄν, ὡς ἔοικεν, εἴη 
θεοῖς - 14 ( ἐπιστήμη ἄρα αἰτή- 
σεως καὶ δόσεως θεοῖς ὁσιότης ἂν 
εἴη; 14 E ἐμπορικὴ ἄρα τις ἂν 
εἴη. On this use of the potential 
opt., see GS. 434-436. The 


7D 


8A 


60 


IO 


8 \ 


60 HAATOQNOS [8 A 


» 
ΕΥ̓Θ. Eouxev. 
Neco, » Ne, Ν Pee unc 5» 
ΣΩ. Καὶ οσια apa καὶ ἀνόσια Ta αὐτὰ ἂν EN, 


ὦ 
Εὐθύφρον, τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ. 

ΕΥΘ. Κινδυνεύει. 

» ἃ > 

IX. 30. Οὐκ apa ὃ ἠρόμην ἀπεκρίνω, ὦ θαυ- 
μάσιε. οὐ γὰρ τοῦτό γε ἠρώτων, ὃ τυγχάνει ταὐτὸν 
“Ὁ Ψ ΄ \ 5 / 5 a > ἃ ἐν ey \ 
ὃν ὅσιόν τε καὶ ἀνόσιον" ὃ δ᾽ ἂν θεοφιλὲς ἢ, καὶ 
Y > > ΄ ἃ Ἂς 
ὥστε, ὦ ὐθύφρον, ὃ σὺ 
lal ~ \ - ΄ 5» Ν id 
νῦν ποιεῖς τὸν | πατέρα κολάζων, οὐδὲν θαυμαστόν, 


» 
θεομισές ἐστιν, ὡς ἔοικεν. 


εἰ τοῦτο δρῶν τῷ μὲν Διὶ προσφιλὲς ποιεῖς, τῷ δὲ 
Κρόνῳ καὶ τῷ Οὐρανῷ ἐχθρόν. καὶ τῷ μὲν Ἡφαίστῳ 
φίλον, τῇ δὲ Ἥρᾳ ἐχθρόν" καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν θεῶν 
ἕτερος ἑτέρῳ διαφέρεται περὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκείνοις κατὰ 


XN D) , 

TQ QAvuTAQ. 
tone of diffident question or as- 
sertion is peculiarly appropriate 
to Socrates, since he professes to 
seek instruction from Euthyphro. 

60. τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ: ‘on this 
view’; others understand, ‘acc. 
to your definition.’ λόγος clearly 
= detinition ino) Ὁ ΠΕ 
opinion is not adopted by 
Socrates, and contradicts 7 A. 
61. κινδυνεύει: see note on 2 C. 

IX. 2. ὃ τυγχάνει κτλ. : ‘that 
which, while self-identical, is holy 
as wellas unholy’; cp. 5 D,7 A. 
Here ταὐτὸν ov go together, and 
the ὄν usual with τυγχάνει is 
omitted, on which see HA. 
984.a; GMT. 902. 3. 68 ἂν 
θεοφιλὲς ἡ: HA. 914 B; G. 1431; 
GMT. 532. 4. Wore: 
quently; cp. 9 C. 6. τοῦτο 
δρῶν: just as οὗτος (cp. 7 B 
καὶ τοῦτο εἴρηται) and οὕτω (cp. 
9 D εἰ τοῦτο ὑποθέμενος οὕτω 


CONS E- 


. . . διδάξεις) are used in refer- 
ring to that which has just been 
described, so too δρᾶν resumes 
the verb, as we use ‘do’; τοῦτο 
(or αὐτὸ) δρᾶν is the standing 
phrase for ‘to do so. See 
Morris on Thucyd. 5. 2. Note 
ποιεῖν in ὃ ov νῦν ποιεῖς τὸν 
πατέρα κολάζων, 1. 5, and δρᾶν 
in τίς ἐστιν ὃ ἀδικῶν καὶ τί δρῶν, 
8D. 8. τῇ δὲ Ἥρᾳ ἐχθρόν : Hera 
cast her son Hephaestus from 
Olympus into Oceanus because 
he was born lame ; he, in revenge, 
sent her a golden throne with 
secret chains with which she was 
bound when she sat upon it. See 
Hom. & 394-405, Pausan. 1. 20. 2. 
Allusion is made to the legend 
also in Rep. 378 D. ο. καὶ ἐκεί- 
νοις : SC. τοῦτο δρῶν τῷ μὲν φίλον 
ποιεῖς τῷ δὲ ἐχθρόν. Here εἴ τις 
ἄλλος implies a plurality of gods ; 
hence the plural. 


8b 


15 


20 


8B 


_ other, that he ought not.’ 


8 6] ΕΥ̓ΘΎΦΡΩΝ 61 


> SS 5 , κα 
EYO. ᾿Αλλ οἶμαι, ὦ Σώκρατες, περί γε τούτου τῶν 
nw 5 ,ὕ ν ε - , ε 5 lo) / 
θεῶν οὐδένα ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ διαφέρεσθαι, ὡς οὐ δεῖ δίκην 
διδόναι ἐκεῖνον, ὃς ἂν ἀδίκως τινὰ ἀποκτείνῃ. 
ΣΩ. Τί δέ; ἀνθρώπων, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, ἤδη τινὸς 
» a ΄ 
ἤκουσας ἀμφισβητοῦντος, ὡς τὸν ἀδίκως | ἀποκτεί- 
x AX LOL an ε A 9 - , 
vavta ἢ ao ἀδίκως ποιοῦντα ὁτιοῦν οὐ δεῖ δίκην 
διδόναι; 
ΕΥ̓Θ. Οὐδὲν μὲν οὖν παύονται ταῦτα ἀμφισβη- 
ἀδι- 
lal ἮΝ , 2 ’ A Ν , 
KOUYTES γὰρ πάμπολλα, πάντα ποιοῦσι Kal λέγουσι 
φεύγοντες τὴν δίκην. 
3 \ lal > “ 
ΣΩ. Ἢ καὶ ὁμολογοῦσιν, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, ἀδικεῖν, καὶ 
ὁμολογοῦντες ὅμως οὐ δεῖν φασὶ σφᾶς διδόναι δίκην; 


nw Ν » Ν » ΄“ ’ὕ 
τοῦντες καὶ ἄλλοθι καὶ ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις. 


12. ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ κτλ. : “ main- 
tain, in opposition one to an- 
For 
pvewat., see HA. 772; G. 1175; 
B. 392.2. Cp. ἀμφισβητοῦντος, 
ieee ov oct, 1: τς, and 1. 26 
λέγειν οὐδ᾽ ἀμφισβητεῖν, ὡς οὐχί. 
The phrases are treated like ordi- 


nary verbs of denying (HA. 


4 


1029 a) and approximate, as the 
last-quoted passage shows, to 
simple indir. disc. 13. ἐκεῖνον, ὃς 
av: see note ond ὃ ἂν θεοφιλὲς 
ἢ 8A. Cp. also 9 AD.— ἀδίκως: 
Euthyphro is begging the ques- 
tion. - 18. οὐδέν : a strengthened 
ov, HA. 719b; G. 1060; RD. § 6. 
mmo vero, corrective. 
HA. 981; 


20. πάντα 


—pev οὖν : 
- ἀμφισβητοῦντες : 
[π΄ 1560; B. 660. 
ποιοῦσι: like πᾶν ποιεῖν. freq. 
implies unscrupulousness; cp. 
πανοῦργος, πανουργεῖν. 21. φεύ- 
yovres: conative, HA. 825; G. 
1255; B. 523. Cp. Afol. 38 D. 


The verb has not its technical 
meaning of ‘being a defendant.’ 
See Gorg. 479 B. 22. ὁμολογοῦσιν 

. ἀδικεῖν : usually ἀδικοῦντες ; 


the inf. here probably because of 


the following part., HA. 981; 
Gy T5015) ΒΒ. 6Gonmi Na Cp: 
Arist. et. 1358 30 ff. περὶ μὲν 
yap τῶν ἄλλων ἐνίοτε οὐκ ἂν 
ἀμφισβητήσαιεν, οἷον ὃ δικαζόμε- 
νος ὡς οὐ γέγονεν ἢ οὐκ ἔβλαψεν. 
ὅτι δ᾽ ἀδικεῖ, οὐδέποτ᾽ ἂν ὁμολο- 
γήσειεν - οὐδὲν yap ἂν ἔδει δίκης. 
About the rest sometimes they 
would not enter dental, e.g., the 
defendant would not deny that 
the thing had occurred, or that 
he had dealt the blow; but he 
would never admit that he was 


in the wrong. See, however, 
Auct. ad Herenn. 2. 16. 24. 
23. ov ϑεῖν φασί: accent and 


position mark φασί for empha- 
sis; the normal order occurs, l. 
28, ov φασιν ἀδικεῖν. 


8C 


25 


30 


BC 


62 


EY. Οὐδαμῶς τοῦτό γε. 
> yy - lo x , 
ΣΩ. Οὐκ apa πᾶν γε ποιοῦσι καὶ λέγουσι. 


ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ 


[80 


τοῦτο 


΄ > > A , πο 8) A ε 
Yap, οἰμαι, OV τολμωσι λέγειν οὐὸ ἀμφισβητεῖν, ὡς 

5 ΄ =/ 5 a Ψ, la δί 5 5 > 
OUXL, ElTEP ἀδικοῦσί γέ: | δοτέον UKNV " ἀλλ΄, οἶμαι; 


οὐ φασιν ἀδικεῖν. 


EYO. ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις. 


ἢ γάρ; 


» nw 5 nw 
ΣΩ. Οὐκ apa ἐκεῖνό ye ἀμφισβητοῦσιν, ὡς ov 


τὸν ἀδικοῦντα δεῖ διδόναι δίκην: ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνο ἴσως 


>) lal Ἂς ’ὔ > ε 5 la) Ν Ζ' ὃ “A SN 
ἀμφισβητοῦσι, TO τις ἐστιν Ο ἀδικῶν καιτι ρων και 


la 
TT OTE. 


EY®. ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις. 


΄Ο ὩΣ al \ ε Ν , 
SQ. Οὐκοῦν αὐτά ye ταῦτα καὶ ot θεοὶ πεπόνθασιν 
2 


», Up ἊΝ “ ὃ , ἃς LOL ε 
εἴπερ στασιάζουσι περὶ τῶν δικαίων καὶ ἀδίκων, ὡς 


ὁ σὸς λόγος, καὶ οἱ μέν φασιν ἄλλους ἀδικεῖν, οἱ δὲ 


25. οὐκ ἄρα πᾶν κτλ. : ‘ there 
is, then, one thing at least they 
dare not say.’ There is here a, 
play on the literal and derivative 
senses of πᾶν ποιεῖν, the more 
evident because ποιοῦσι is not 
really needed, since all hinges 
on λέγουσι. 26. οὐ τολμῶσι 
sien ὡς οὐχί: See Mote ΠῚ 12. 
28. οὔ φασιν: HA. 1028; G. 
1383. 2; B. 431. 3. ov φασιν 
ἀδικεῖν : they plead not guilty. On 
the face of it, this plea might be 
subject to a double construction : 
first, it might mean that they have 
not committed the act alleged; 
again, it might mean that, though 
they have done the deed, their 
action does not constitute a viola- 
tion of the law (cp. φόνος δίκαιος 
and see noteon4B). Here the 
latter is clearly intended. In what 
follows, if the text is sound (see 
App.), the plea is somewhat ex- 


tended, so as to embrace the 
questions by whom, how, and 
when a violation of law was com- 
mitted, if indeed there was a vio- 
lation. In the case, é.g., of justi- 
fiable homicide in self-defense, 
such a plea would not be at all 
inconsistent with one of ‘not 
guilty,’ to a charge of murder. 
29. ἀληθῆ λέγεις: frequent in 
answers, see l. 34,and 10 E, 14 E. 
32. τὸ τίς ἐστιν : for the art., see 
G. 955.2. 35. καὶ οἱ θεοί 5 zhe 
gods likewise. Socrates, as usual, 
is arguing from analogy. It is, 
in fact, the analogy between the 
conduct of gods and of men that 
underlies his whole argument. 
37. οἱ μέν φασιν κτλ.: ‘and 
one set of gods declares that 
they (viz. certain other beings, ἀλ- 
λους) are in the wrong, whereas 
the other set says that they are 
not.’ See App. 


8D 


40 


45 





9 ΑἹ ἘΥΘΥΦΡΩΝ 63 


» XN > »“» , v4 > , > \ 
ov φασιν; επεὶ ἐκεῖνό ye δήπου, ὦ θαυμάσιε, οὐδεὶς 
» A » > , ° ΄ ε > ω 
οὔτε θεῶν οὔτε ἀνθρώπων | τολμᾷ λέγειν, ὡς οὐ τῷ 
γε ἀδικοῦντι δοτέον δίκην. 
΄ a \ > \ > 
EYO. Nat, τοῦτο μὲν ἀληθὲς λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες, 
Se 
TO κεφάλαιον. 
XQ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἕκαστόν ye, οἶμαι, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, τῶν 
Ἅ 5 “ ε 5 ἴων Ἀ 
πραχθέντων ἀμφισβητοῦσιν οἱ ἀμφισβητοῦντες, καὶ 
» \ Fay τ᾿ A ΄ ΄ 
ἄνθρωποι καὶ θεοί, εἴπερ ἀμφισβητοῦσιν θεοί: πρά- 
Eeds τινος πέρι διαφερόμενοι οἱ μὲν δικαίως φασὶν 
αὐτὴν πεπρᾶχθαι, οἱ δὲ ἀδίκως - ap’ οὐχ οὕτω; 
ΕΥ̓Θ. Πάνυ γε. 
X. ΣΩ. Ἴθι νυν, ὦ φίλε Εὐθύφρον, δίδαξον καὶ | 
ἐμέ, ἵνα σοφώτερος γένωμαι, τί σοι τεκμήριόν ἐστιν, 


38. δήπου: assuredly, more 
confident than που. 39. τολμᾷ 
λέγειν : ‘has the effrontery to say.’ 
— τῷ ye ἀδικοῦντι: HA. οοἱ ; G. 
1597; B. 666. Here ye indicates 
that his guilt is admitted ; for its 
position, see HA. 1037, I a. 
40. δίκην: HA. 990; G. 1597; B. 
666. 41. τοῦτο μὲν ἀληθὲς λέγεις : 
note μέν solitarium. With-the 
form of the sent. cp. Gorg. 461 D 
τί τοῦτο λέγεις = τί ἐστι τοῦτο ὃ 
λέγεις, Alc. [. 109 Β δεινὸν τοῦτό 
γε ἐρωτᾷς, and above 3 C οὐδὲν 
ὅτι οὐκ ἀληθὲς εἴρηκα, HA. 618, 
and ΙΟ12 a. But ἀληθὲς λέγεις 
(like ἀληθῆ λέγεις) is practically 
Ξε ἀληθεύεις ; cp. Zeno οὗ B, Lach. 
186 A, Dem. 7. 43. 42. τὸ κεφά- 
λαιον : ‘in the main,’ HA. 626b; 
B. 318. The reservation is due 
entirely to embarrassment, not to 
any exception that he intends to 
urge. 45. πράξεώς τινος πέρι: eX- 
planatory asyndeton. HA. 1039. 


The emphatic position of πράξεως 
denotes that the gods differamong 
themselves in their judgment of 
the actzon, not about administer- 
ing or withholding punishment 
of admitted guilt. For πέρι. see 
HA. 109/aseGnr6. Bs Β: 68: 

X. τ. ἴθι νυν : ‘come now.” νυν 
is illative, not temporal, B. 582, Ν. 
2. τί σοι τεκμήριόν ἐστιν: Soc- 
rates here asks for a demon- 
strative proof that the gods one 
and all judge the conduct of 
Euthyphro’s father to be wrong. 
Since the τεκμήριον is an infalli- 
ble mark or criterion, the ques- 
tion is tantamount to a demand 
for a definition of the essential 
nature of the ὅσιον, as against 
the accidental mark of being 
agreeable to the gods (θεοφιλές). 
In stating the question, the re- 
pulsive details are purposely 
dwelt upon, to emphasize the 
need of a criterion. 


8E 


ΙΟ 


- 


9A 


64 TAATONOS [oA 


ε , \ e “ 5 “ 5 , ’ ἃ 
ὡς πάντες θεοὶ ἡγοῦνται ἐκεῖνον ἀδίκως τεθνάναι, ὃς 
Ἃ , > ΄ , \ TREN A 
av θητεύων ἀνδροφόνος γενόμενος, ξυνδεθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ 
δεσπότου τοῦ ἀποθανόντος, φθάσῃ τελευτήσας διὰ 
τὰ δεσμά, πρὶν τὸν ξυνδήσαντα παρὰ τῶν ἐξηγητῶν 
περὶ αὐτοῦ πυθέσθαι, τί χρὴ ποιεῖν, καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
τοιούτου δὴ ὀρθῶς ἔχει ἐπεξιέναι καὶ ἐπισκήπτεσθαι 
φόνου τὸν υἱὸν τῷ πατρί' ἴθι, περὶ τούτων πειρῶ τί 
\ 5 , ε Ἂν »Ὃ““ 7. 
μοι σαφὲς ἐνδείξασθαι, ὡς παντὸς μᾶλλον πάντες 
θεοὶ | ἡγοῦνται ὀρθῶς ἔχειν ταύτην τὴν πρᾶξιν: Kay 
ε nn » » 9 vA > Ν Yd 2) 4 
μοι ἱκανῶς ἐνδείξῃ, ἐγκωμιάζων oe ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ οὐδέ. 
ποτε παύσομαι. 
s 


EY®. "AN ἴσως οὐκ ὀλίγον ἔργον ἐστίν, ὦ Σώ- 


> Ν / ὯΝ A Ὁ 3 ὃ “a 7 
KPQATES* έπει TAVVU YE σαφῶς εχουμιυ αν ἐπι εἴξαί σοι. 





3. πάντες θεοί: in g E we position; cp. 4 Ε. ---ἴθι : resumes 


ἴ ἰ νυν. 16, tte 


read πάντες ot θεοί: the phrases 
are practically equivalent; for 
distinctions, see HA. 672. — 
ἐκεῖνον... ὃς Gv: see note on$ A. 
- τεθνάναι : pass., see HA. 820; 
B. 513. Note ἀποθανόντος, |. 5, 
and see HA. 530,4a. 5. φθάσῃ 
τελευτήσας: HA. 984; G. 1586; 
B.660,N. φθάνειν may be constr. 
c. inf. after πρίν, or after πρότερον 
n πρὶν ἤ: Orn. 6. τὰ δεσμά : only 
here neut. in Plato; cp. δεσμούς 
hep. 378 D. See Rutherford, 
New Phrynichus, p. 353.—Tav 
ἐξηγητῶν : see noteon4C. Here 
the entire college is meant ; before 
only its president was referred to. 
8. δή : note the tone of contempt. 
— ἐπισκήπτεσθαι : techn. term in 
Att. law for denounce. This verb, 
like ἐπεξιέναι and ἐγκαλεῖν, takes 
the dat. of the person and the 
gen. of the charge. 9. τὸν υἱὸν 
τῷ πατρί: note the forceful juxta- 


10. παντὸς μᾶλλον: 
‘beyond. ἃ doubt’; originally, 
‘more than anything.’ 11. Kav: 
and if. τῶ. ἐγκωμιάζων... παύ- 
copat: HA. οϑιῖ. (Θ᾿ 1580908. 
660. —émi σοφίᾳ: cp. Hipp. Ma. 
281 C, 291 A, Syuzp. 206 B, A7eno 
70 A. 14. οὐκ ὀλίγον ἔργον : Cp. 
hep. 369 B, Phaedr. 272 B, Soph. 
217 Β. See 14 Β πλείονος ἔργου 


ἐστίν. Euthyphro is trying to 
evade the difficulty. 15. ἐπεὶ 
πάνυ ye: on ἐπεὶ . . - ye, here 


and in 1- 1ἢ, see: note ἢ ἢ (δ. 
— ἐπιδεῖξαι: Socrates has used 
ἐνδείξασθαι = ἀποδείξασθαι. Prove 
by argument. It is tempting to 
consider this as a fine bit of 
characterization of Euthyphro, 
who desires, like the Sophists, to 
persuade Socrates in a set speech 
(ἐπίδειξις) ; but the inference is 
not necessary, as ἐπιδείκνυμι is 
used elsewhere just as ἐνδείκνυμι 


9A 


9 ΟἹ EYOY@PQN 65 


, ν lal lal ἴω 

ΣΩ. Μανθάνω: ὅτι σοι δοκῶ τῶν δικαστῶν δυσμα- 
θέ. ἣν 5 Ν 5 7 > ,ὔ los ν 
έστερος εἶναι" ἐπεὶ ἐκείνοις γε ἐνδείξει δῆλον OTL, 
ε » , » > Ν ε Ν g lal 
ὡς ἀδικά τέ ἐστιν καὶ οἱ θεοὶ ἅπαντες τὰ τοιαῦτα 
μισοῦσιν. 

, “ 5 
EYO. Πάνυ ye σαφῶς, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἐάνπερ ἀκούωσί 





γέ μου λέγοντος. 
ΕΓ ΣΩ. 
λέγειν. 


"ANN ἀκούσονται, ἐάνπερ εὖ δοκῇς | 
τόδε δέ σου ἐνενόησα ἅμα λέγοντος, καὶ 


πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν σκοπῶ. εἰ ὅτι μάλιστά ΓΕ Εὐθύφρων 


διδάξειεν, ὡς οἱ θεοὶ ἅπαντες τὸν τοιοῦτον θάνατον 


ἡγοῦνται ἀδικον εἶναι. τί μᾶλλον ἐγὼ μεμάθηκα παρ᾽ 


He 4, ων 3. 5 \ x 9 ’ὔ’ Ἂ Ἂς > ’ 
Ev Uppovos, TL TOT ἐστιν TO OO LOY TE και TO AVOOLOP ; 


is here. Cp. Euthyd. 294 C 
τεκμήριόν TL μοι τούτων ἐπιδείξα- 
τον τοιόνδε. ᾧ εἴσομαι, ὅτι ἀληθῆ 
- λέγετον. Note σαφές |. το, σα- 
φῶς]. 15. 
16. μανθάνω " ὅτι : see note on 
3 Β. 20. ἐάνπερ ἀκούωσί γε: a 
witty turn; for Euthyphro is 
used to being laughed out of the 
-assembly ; see 3 C. 
XI. 1. ἐάνπερ εὖ δοκῇς λέγειν: 
‘if they think you a good speak- 
er.” Note the hyperbaton of εὖ 
for emphasis. Of course, this is 
not the only sense of εὖ λέγειν. 
2. ἅμα λέγοντος : gen. abs.; for 
ἅμα, see HA. 976; G. 1572; 
mi, 055. Cp. ep. 370 A, 383 A. 
3. πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν σκοπῶ: Cp. 
Afpol. 21 D πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν δ᾽ οὖν 
ἀπιὼν ἐλογιζόμην. (Ρ. αἰ50 Λε. 
370 A. Adam rightly regards 
this incident as typical, referring 
to Symp. 174 D, where Socrates 
pauses to reflect on his way to 
the feast, and to 220 C, where he 


EUTHYPHRO — 5 


is said to have stood deep in 
thought from one dawn to the 
next. The Sophists introduced 
an age of subjectivity in the sense 
of that which is not rational, and 
cannot be communicated (see 
Gorgias) ; Socrates represents 
the rational subjectivity which 
seeks in the mind the criteria, 
not only of knowledge, but of 
reality. And dialectic, the logi- 
cal instrument for the attainment 
of truth, is, according to Plato, a 
dialogue of the soul with itself 
(Theaet. 189 E, Soph. 263 E). 
This is merely a theoretical state- 
ment of that which Socrates 
habitually practised. — εἰ ὅτι pa- 


λιστα: see note on 4 D. — Evév- 
pov... παρ᾽ Εἰὐθύφρονος : familiar 
tone; repetition for emphasis. 
4. ϑιδάξειεν. . . μεμάθηκα: the 
perf. stands for a fut. pf., GS. 
234. The change from the 
regular opt. is in the interest 


of vividness. 


Q 


gC 


Io 


tS 


gC 


66 IAATONOS [9C 


lol y+ » 
(θεομισὲς μὲν γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον, ὡς ἔοικεν, εἴη ἄν" 
40) ἈΝ \ 5) ΄ Py , » ε , NX us 
ἀλλὰ yap ov τούτῳ ἐφάνη apt. ὡρισμένα τὸ ὅσιον 
Kal μι). 
ὥστε τούτου μὲν ἀφίημί σε, ὦ Εὐθύφρον -) εἰ βούλει, 
πάντες αὐτὸ | ἡγείσθων θεοὶ ἄδικον καὶ πάντες μι- 


τὸ γὰρ θεομισὲς ὃν καὶ θεοφιλὲς ἐφάνη " 


ip 5 5 Ss “ lal 5 , 5 n 
σούντων. ἀλλ᾽ apa τοῦτο νῦν ἐπανορθώμεθα ἐν τῷ 
λόγῳ, ὡς ὃ μὲν ἂν πάντες οἱ θεοὶ μισῶσιν, ἀνόσιόν 
> aA δ᾽ “Ὁ lol y ἃ δ᾽ “Δ ε \ lal 
ἐστιν, ὃ δ᾽ ἂν φιλῶσιν, ὅσιον " ὃ δ᾽ ἂν οἱ μὲν φιλῶσιν, 


ε Ν “ 5 ΄ Δ» ΄ (oe) 4 , 
ol δὲ μισῶσιν, οὐδέτερα ἢ ἀμφότερα; ἄρ᾽ οὕτω βούλει 


ε lal , an Ν (ao 12 4 Ἂν an 5» yA 
μιν ὡρίσθαι νυν πέρι του OOLOV και του ανοσιοῦυ ; 


ΕΥΘ. Τί γὰρ κωλύει, ὦ Σώκρατες ; 
ΣΩ. Οὐδὲν ἐμέ ye, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, ἀλλὰ σὺ δὴ τὸ 


7. θεομισὲς μὲν γάρ κτλ. : 
parenthetical. Socrates has said 
that he has conceived the thought 
that even if all the gods regarded 
the deed in question as unjust, he 
would not have ascertained the 
nature of the holy and the unholy. 
That, he remarks parenthetically, 
would only prove that all the gods 
hated the deed, not (he implies) 
that the deed was unholy, be- 
cause, owing to the confusion of 
θεομισές and θεοφιλές. reference 
to the love or hatred of the gods 
(τούτῳ) had failed to discrimi- 
nate between the holy and the 
unholy. Hence he will rule out 
this count and not demand a 
defense of it (ὥστε τούτου μὲν 
ἀφίημί ce. Cp. ἀφίῃ (ue) δίκης 
9 B). He then resumes his 
new line of thought abruptly in 
ei BovAe. See App. 8. ἄρτι: 
refers to the argument in 6 E ff. 
το. εἰ βούλει: explanatory asyn- 
deton, HA. 1039. Cp. ΖΝ: 


285 B. 11. ἡγείσθων 
μισούντων: the imv. makes an 
assumption for the sake of argu- 
ment. GMT. 254. 12. ἐπαν- 
ορθώμεθα xKTA.: ‘amend our 
definition to the effect that.’ 
14. ὃ δ᾽ ἂν οἱ μέν κτλ. : the clause 
retains in full its original cond. 
force; if taken as a serious ad- 
mission of the existence of such 
objects, it would set aside the 
definition it purports to explain. 
Even the condition is purely for- 


mal. 15. οὐδέτερα: HA. 635 a; 
RD. §§ 17, 42. Cp. ἢ δῆλα δή, 
4.B. τὸ. ἡμῖν: ΗᾺ 700.) ἴεν 
1186; B. 380. 17. tt yap καὶ 
Aver: note the nonchalant tone. 


Cp. Charm. 163 Ati γὰρ κωχύει; 
ἔφη. Οὐδὲν ἐμέ γε, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ. 
18. τὸ σὸν σκόπει. εἰ: virtually 
= σκόπει, εἰ σύ ye, as Schanz 
says. With τὸ σόν one may sup- 
ply μέρος. ‘interest,’ but the ex- 
pressionis phraseological. Fore, 
see HA. 1016; G. τόσ ; ΒΒ. δ). 


A oy: 


20 


25 


30 


9D 


10 ΑἹ EY@OY®PON 


67 


ἊΝ / > lal = 
σὸν σκόπει, εἰ τοῦτο ὑποθέμενος OVTW ῥᾷστά με 
διδάξεις ὃ ὑπέσχου. 

5: 9.» ΄ x a 3: 

EYO. ᾿Αλλ Eywye φαίην ἂν τοῦτο εἶναι | τὸ ὅσιον, 
ἃ “Δ 4 ε ἣΝ “A Ν Ν > , ἃ “Δ 
ὃ ἂν πάντες οἱ θεοὶ φιλῶσιν, καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον, ὃ ἂν 

Ν a 

πάντες θεοὶ μισῶσιν, ἀνόσιον. 

ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν ἐπισκοπῶμεν αὖ τοῦτο, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, 

an “ἡ nw iy, n Lal 
εἰ καλῶς λέγεται, ἢ ἐῶμεν καὶ οὕτω ἡμῶν TE αὐτῶν 
5 ie Ν ἰφὰ » 2X id “ ΄ 
ἀποδεχώμεθα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ἐὰν μόνον φῇ τίς τι 
ΕΣ Ψ A ¥ x 
ἔχειν οὕτω, ξυγχωροῦντες ἔχειν ; ἢ σκεπτέον, Ti λέγει 
ὁ λέγων; 
“" , » qn 
EYO. Σκεπτέον - οἶμαι μέντοι ἔγωγε τοῦτο νυνὶ 


καλῶς λέγεσθαι. 


XII. 30. Tay’, ὦ ᾽γαθέ, βέλτιον εἰσόμεθα. 


> 
€V- 


/ AN Ν , > Ν ν 9 ν / 
voryo ov yap | TO τοιόνδε" apa TO OOLOV, OTL OOLOV 


19. τοῦτο ὑποθέμενος : ‘on 
that assumption’; ὑπόθεσις is an 
assumption made for purely dia- 
lectical purposes to be employed 
consistently until it may break 
down. With οὕτω, which re- 


“sumes τοῦτο ὑποθέμενος, the con- 





sequence or result is emphasized 
by the verb. GMT. 857. Cp. 
Phaedo 67 DE, 115 A. 

SECOND DEFINITION AMEND- 
ED: ‘Holiness is what all the 
gods love; unholiness, on the 
contrary, is what all the gods 
abhor.’ At this point one of the 
incidental gains of the dialogue 
is reached: it is virtually con- 
ceded that if the traditional re- 
ligion is to be made available as 
a support to moral conduct, the 
caprice of the polytheistic deities 
must be eliminated by assuming 
that they are in agreement on all 


essentials. But this is practi- 
cally monotheism. 

25. καλῶς λέγεται : see note on 
παγκάλως, 7 A.— οὕτω... ἀπο- 
δεχώμεθα: οὕτω = offhand, orig. 
spoken with a wave of the hand. 
See on ὡς οὕτω γ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι, 3 A. 


--ἡμών. .. αὐτῶν: HA. 742; 
G. 1103; B. 356. 26. ἐὰν μόνον 
. . . ἔχειν οὕτω : the clause is the 


obj. of ἀποδεχώμεθα : ἔχειν οὕτω 
and the following ἔχειν are phrase- 
ological =o beso. 27. τί λέγει: 
see note on τί λέγομεν, 7 A; 
but λέγει may merely = mean. 
Gli . εἰσόμεθα: 
τάχα here = soon. Att. prose 
uses τάχα with the fut. only in 
this sense. Cp. Gorg. 450 C, 
Phil. 53 E, Minos 314 C, Soph. 
247 Ὁ. 2. ἄρα τὸ ὅσιον. . . 
ὅσιόν ἐστιν: in the first case, τὸ 
θεοφιλές would be only an acci- 


, > 
τάχ 


10 


gE 


10 A 


68 TMAATONOS 


[10 A 


=~ an A A ¢ A Φ ΄ὕ 
ἐστιν, φιλεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν, ἢ ὅτι φιλεῖται, ὅσιόν 


ἐστιν ; 


ΕΥΘ. Οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες. 
ΣΩ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐγὼ πειράσομαι σαφέστερον φράσαι. 
λέγομέν τι φερόμενον καὶ φέρον καὶ ἀγόμενον καὶ 


το Α dental quality of τὸ ὅσιον; in 


the second, it would constitute 
its essence. That is to say, if 
holiness were holiness because 
the gods loved it, then the fact 
of the gods’ loving an act would 
be the first and essential point to 
determine in deciding whether 
the act was or was not holy; but 
if the gods loved holiness be- 
cause it was holy, then its being 
holy would be a fact without the 
gods’ loving it, and hence their 
loving it would not affect its 
nature. Of these alternatives, 
the first is established in the 
following argument; and hence 
it is proved that the second defi- 
nition, even in its amended form, 
is inadequate. There is, how- 
ever, a great gain achieved by 
the discussion at this point; for 
the argument virtually means 
that the essence of holiness is 
independent of the will of Deity, 
— that is to say, that the human 
spirit is as truly autonomous in 
the field of religion as in the 
field of philosophical truth gen- 
erally, where it has always as- 
serted its independence. Un- 
fortunately the argument is not 
at first sight clear. Socrates sets 
up a series of distinctions, first 
between the active and the pas- 
sive (10 A). This is done to 


prepare the way for the inquiry. 
The passive is singled out be- 
cause it is necessary to the ques- 
tion, dpa τὸ ὅσιον ὅτι ὅσιόν ἐστιν 


cal «ες Ν Cn Nes “ a» - 
φιλεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν, ἢ ὅτι 
φιλεῖται ὅσιόν ἐστιν; Noting 


the correlation of active and 
passive further emphasizes the 
verbal nature of the passive, as 
stating an act. Then a distinc- 
tion is made between the pas- 
sive verb φιλεῖται and the pass. 
part. φιλούμενον when used peri- 
phrastically with the copula ἐστί 
(10 B ff.). The form φιλεῖται 
is used to denote the act, while 
the part. expresses the general 
character which is predicated in 
consequence of the (habitual) 
occurrence of the act. Then 
(το D) φιλούμενον (ὑπὸ Gedy) is 
identified with θεοφιλές and later 
(11 A) with οἷον φιλεῖσθαι (ὑπὸ 
Gedy). Cp. GS. 191 and W. 
J. Alexander, Participial Periph- 
vases im Attic Prose, Δ ΕΠ 
201 ff. 

7. λέγομέν τι φερόμενον : this 
form of question is common in 
Plato, when he desires to lay the 
basis for an argument. See, in 
the Gorgzas alone, 454 C, 463 E, 
404. Β, 495 .C. (Gp. Wnitzsene 
ad Menon. 75 D. It appears 
to have been borrowed from 
Socrates; see Xen. Mem. 2.2.1; 





10 


a5 


20 


FOA 4. 2. 





10 B] 


EY@OY®PON 


69 


ἄγον καὶ ὁρώμενον καὶ ὁρῶν καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα 
μανθάνεις ὅ ὅτι ἕτερα ἀλλήλων ἐστὶ Kal ἣ ἕτερα ; 
ΕΥ̓Θ. ἔγωγέ μοι δοκῶ μανθάνειν. 


3 “ \ 
22. Οὐκοῦν καὶ φιλούμενόν τί ἐστιν καὶ τούτου 


ἕτερον τὸ φιλοῦν ; 
EY. Πῶς γὰρ ov ; 


30. Λέγε δή μοι, πότερον τὸ | φερόμενον, διότι 
έρεται, φερόμενόν ἐστιν, ἣ δι᾿ ἀλλο τι; 
ρ ρόμ "ἢ 


ΕΥΘ. 


Οὔκ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο. 


Χ Ν ψ' /, 
20. Καὶ τὸ ἀγόμενον δή, διότι ἄγεται, Kal τὸ ὁρώ- 


μενον, διότι ὁρᾶται; 
ΕΥ̓Θ. Πάνυ γε. 


ΣΩ. Οὐκ ἄρα διότι ὁρώμενόν γέ ἐστιν, διὰ 
ε Cw“ 5 Ν Ν 5 ’ / ε “a ον 
ὁρᾶται, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐναντίον διότι ὁρᾶται, διὰ 
ε 4 5 Ν ΄ > / IZ. > Ν 
ὁρώμενον - οὐδὲ διότι ἀγόμενόν ἐστιν, διὰ 
Ν 5 \ , »” Ν qn 5 ΄,ὕ 
ἄγεται, ἀλλὰ διότι ἄγεται, διὰ τοῦτο ἀγόμενον" 


διότι φερόμενον, φέρεται, ἀλλὰ διότι φέρεται, 


As usual, the exam- 
ples are chosen from the sphere 


~ of concrete fact, where the rela- 


tions are easily grasped. 

9. ἕτερα ἀλλήλων: HA.753 g; 
G. 1140; B. 362, 2. Cp. érepov 
ἑτέρῳ διαφέρεσθαι, ὃ B. 
how, wherein. 13. πῶς γὰρ οὔ: 
common answer in strong assent. 
Cp. 10 D and πῶς 6 ov; 14 A. 
yap is of course confirmatory. 
14. λέγε δή por: the student 
may find: the meaning somewhat 
simplified if he will resort to 
some such device as the follow- 
ing: translate τὸ φερόμενον with 
what is carried; φέρεται. by 
putting it actively, with somze- 
body carries it; and φερόμενόν 





TOUTO 
TOUTO 
TOUTO 

οὐδὲ 


φερό- 


ἐστιν with has the quality of 
being carried. Say, ‘Tell me 
whether what is carried has the 
quality of being carried because 
somebody carries it, or for some 
other reason?’ Similarly in 
what follows. — διότι: chosen 
here and in the following passage, 
instead of ὅτι, in order to point 
δι ἄλλο 


the parallel with Tl. 
16. οὔκ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο: Cp. 
10 D, 12D. Note the chias- 
tic order, RD. § 305. The 


first question is emphatically af- 
firmed after denying the second. 


See Deuschle-Cron on Gorg. 
453 D. 21. τὸ ἐναντίον: HA. 
626 ὃ; Gi οὐ; Β' 218: RD: 
§ 18. 


190A 


25 


30 


40 


45 


τος 


ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ [10 C 


70 


μενον. ἄρα κατάδηλον, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, ὃ βούλομαι 
λέγειν ; | βούλομαι δὲ τόδε, ὅτι, εἴ τι γίγνεται H τι 

Ly, > ty 
πάσχει; οὐχ OTL γιγνόμενόν ἐστι, γίγνεται, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι 
Ψ / 


γίγνεται, γιγνόμενόν ἐστιν" οὐδ᾽ ὅτι πάσχον ἐστί, 
πάσχει, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι πάσχει, πάσχον ἐστίν: ἢ οὐ ξυγχω- 
pels οὕτω ; 

EYO. "Eyoye. 

ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν καὶ τὸ φιλούμενον ἢ γιγνόμενόν τί 
ἐστιν ἣ πάσχον τι ὑπό του ; 

ΕΥ̓Θ. Πάνυ γε. 

ΣΩ. Καὶ τοῦτο ἄρα οὕτως ἔχει. ὥσπερ τὰ πρότερα" 
οὐχ ὅτι φιλούμενόν ἐστιν, φιλεῖται ὑπὸ ὧν φιλεῖται, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι φιλεῖται, φιλούμενον ; 

EYO. ᾿Ανάγκη. 


ΣΩ. Τί δὴ οὖν λέγομεν περὶ τοῦ ὁσίου, | ὦ Εὐθύ- 
ΕΝ A εκ a , ε ε Ν 

φρον ; ἀλλο τι φιλεῖται ὑπὸ θεῶν πάντων, ὡς ὁ σὸς 
λόγος ; 

ΕΥ̓Θ. Ναί. 

ΣΩ. ἾΑρα διὰ τοῦτο, ὅτι ὅσιόν ἐστιν. Ov ἄλλο τι; 

Ρβ ἢ , ἢ 
ΕΥΘ. Οὔκ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο. 
ΣΩ. Διότι ἄρα ὅσιόν ἐστίν. φιλεῖται. ἀλλ᾽ οὐν ὅτι 
Pp ’ ? X 


A κ a Ψ ΄ 3 
φιλεῖται, διὰ τοῦτο ὅσιόν ἐστιν ; 
» 
EY@. ~EKouxev. 


27. πάσχει: ‘has something 
done to it’: used to convey what 
we mean by putting a verb into 
the passive. Cp. Zheaet. 157 A 
and Gorg. 476 B dpa εἴ τίς τι 
ποιεῖ, ἀνάγκη τι εἶναι καὶ πάσχον 
ὑπὸ τούτου τοῦ ποιοῦντος : Where 
the entire argument should be 
compared. Note that the subj. 
of πάσχει (2.6. τι) is omitted. 
Cp. ἢ πάσχον τι in 1. 33 below. 


32. γιγνόμενόν τι: like πάσχον, 
in the pred. The variety of ex- 
pressions is used because in some 
of the verbs the ‘ passive ’ idea is 
not prominent. 36. ὑπὸ ov: for 
ὑπὸ τούτων (ὑπὸ) wv. For the 
prep., see) ELA τοῦ; ἴθ ΤΟ, 
1032; B. 487, N. 40. ἄλλο πὶ 
φιλεῖται : ἄλλο τι = ἀλλο τι ἤ; 
15 C, 220717129 Cp. HA. 1015 b; 
G. 1604; B. 573, Ν. : RDO Size 








5° 


55 


5 


10D 





10 E] 


EY@YOPQN γι 


ΣΩ. ᾿Αλλὰ μὲν δὴ διότι γε φιλεῖται ὑπὸ θεῶν, φιλού- 
μενόν ἐστι καὶ θεοφιλὲς (τὸ θεοφιλές). 


EY®. Πῶς γὰρ οὖ; 


Ε iy “" 
ΣΩ. Οὐκ ἄρα τὸ θεοφιλὲς ὁσιόν ἐστιν, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, 
οὐδὲ τὸ ὅσιον θεοφιλές, ὡς σὺ λέγεις, ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερον 


τοῦτο τούτου. 


ΕΥΘ. Πώς δή, ὦ | Σώκρατες ; 


ν ε la 9 ἴω 
ΣΩ. Ὅτι ὁμολογοῦμεν τὸ μὲν ὅσιον διὰ τοῦτο 


φιλεῖσθαι, ὅτι ὅσιόν ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διότι φιλεῖται, 


ὅσιον εἶναι" ἢ γάρ ; 
ΕΥΘ. Ναί. 


Pelli SO. To δέ γε θεοφιλὲς ὅτι φιλεῖται ὑπὸ 


θεῶν, αὐτῷ τούτῳ τῷ φιλεῖσθαι θεοφιλὲς εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ 


οὐχ ὅτι θεοφιλές, διὰ τοῦτο φιλεῖσθαι. 


ΕΥΘ. ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις. 


SO. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἴ γε ταὐτὸν ἦν, ὦ φίλε Εὐθύφρον, τὸ 


48. ἀλλὰ μὲν δὴ . .. γε: ἃ 
formula of transition, not of ob- 
jection (so-called ὑποφορά) as in 
Cyto 48 A. Cp. RD. § 160 ἃ, 
§ 295; Frohberger on Lys. 12. 
35 (App.). γε after διότι draws 
attention to the causal relation, 
as the point of cardinal impor- 
tance. Cp. wa ye in 12 B and 
εἴ γε ἴῃ το Ε. 51. οὐκ ἄρα τὸ 
θεοφιλές κτλ. : one might have 
expected the art. in the pred., 
because logically it is not mere 
predication but identification that 
is desired: this becomes evident 
not only from the course of the 
argument, but also from ἀλλ᾽ ἕτε- 
pov τοῦτο τούτου. For the group- 
ing of these words, Fritzsche 
compares Zeno 87 C τοῦτο μετὰ 
τοῦτο. 54. πῶς δή: ‘how so?’ 


XIII. 5. GAN et ye κτλ.: 
Socrates proceeds to put his ar- 
gument into succinct form. As- 
suming the conclusions already 
reached as hypotheses from 
which the consequences are to 
be deduced, he reaches by wholly 
correct reasoning the conclusion 
that being loved by the gods is 
an accident, not the essence of 
holiness. Two propositions have 
been granted: 

(A) The gods love τὸ ὅσιον 
because it is ὅσιον ; but 
it is κοΐ ὅσιον because 
the gods love it [its 


being ὅσιον is the 
cause of the gods’ lov- 
ing it] ; 


(B) τὸ θεοφιλές is θεοφιλές 
because the gods love 


Ιο E 


ΙΟ 


TAATONOS [10 E 


72 
\ Ἂν ΩΝ ν 5 Ν Ν \ ν > 5 
θεοφιλὲς καὶ τὸ ὅσιον. εἰ μὲν διὰ τὸ ὅσιον εἶναι ἐφι- 
λεῖτο τὸ ὅσιον, καὶ διὰ τὸ θεοφιλὲς εἶναι | ἐφιλεῖτο 
ἂν τὸ θεοφιλές, εἰ δὲ διὰ τὸ φιλεῖσθαι ὑπὸ θεῶν τὸ 
θεοφιλὲς θεοφιλὲς Hv, καὶ τὸ ὅσιον ἂν διὰ τὸ φιλεῖ 
σθαι ὅσιον ἢν νῦν δὲ ὁρᾷς, ὅτι ἐναντίως ἔχετον, ὡς 
; 7 
παντάπασιν ἑτέρω ὄντε ἀλλήλων. τὸ μὲν yap, ὅτι 
at > Ν - a Ν Sy. 5 Ν i) 
φιλεῖται, ἐστὶν οἷον φιλεῖσθαι: τὸ δ᾽ ὅτι ἐστὶν οἷον 
φιλεῖσθαι, διὰ τοῦτο φιλεῖται. καὶ κινδυνεύεις, ὦ 
YY ο Ἂς 
Εὐθύφρον, ἐρωτώμενος τὸ ὅσιον, ὅτι ποτ᾽ ἔστιν, τὴν 


lal “ 4 
15 μὲν οὐσίαν μοι αὐτοῦ ov βούλεσθαι δηλῶσαι, πάθος 


10 Εὶ 


it [its being θεοφιλές 
is the effect of the gods’ 
loving it]. 
Now, taking these propositions 
as the basis of our argument, let 
us assume the identity of τὸ 
ὅσιον and τὸ θεοφιλές (their iden- 
tity being necessary to the truth of 
Euthyphro’s contention), which 
will require that either term may 
at will be substituted for the 
other in any proposition. On 
this hypothesis, then, : 
If the gods’ loving τὸ ὅσιον is 
the effect of its being ὅσιον 
(A), then 
the gods’ loving τὸ θεοφιλές 
would be the effect of its 
being θεοφιλές ; 
and 
If τὸ θεοφιλές, being θεοφιλές, 
is the effect of the gods’ 
loving it (B), then 
τὸ ὅσιον, being ὅσιον, would 
be the effect of the gods’ 
loving it. 
But this is obviously not the 
case ; for, acc. to our hypothesis, 
(B) the one (τὸ θεοφιλές), 


being of a character to 
be loved by the gods 
(θεοφιλές). is the effect 
of the gods’ loving it; 
whereas, 

(A) the gods’ loving the 
other (τὸ ὅσιον) is 
the effect of its being 
of a character to be 
loved by the gods. 

10. ἐναντίως ἔχετον : ‘they are 

the opposite one of the other.’ 
The terms are not logical con- 
tradictories; but in the scheme 
here adopted one is the cause, 
the other is the effect of φιλεῖσθαι 
ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν. Aristotle em- 
ployed the adv. as his tech. term 
for contradiction. — ὡς ὄντε : 
HA. 974; G. 15703, B. 658,06 
12. οἷον φιλεῖσθαι: HA. 1000; 
GMT.759. Seenote on 10A,]1,2. 
14. τὴν μὲν οὐσίαν. . . πάθος 
δέ τι: the passage shows that 
these terms were not yet common 
currency (cp. Phaedo 65 D, 78 C, 
92 D, Meno 72 B). The οὐσία 
of an object is the sum of those 
qualities which must be included 





11 Β] EYOY®PQN 


73 


δέ \ > a rg Ge , A Ν Ὁ 
€ τι περι αὐτοῦ λέγειν, ὁτι πέπονθε τοῦτο τὸ ὅσιον. 
“ ε Ν , Lat ν \ » » > 
φιλεῖσθαι ὑπὸ πάντων | θεῶν - ὅτι δὲ ὄν. οὔπω εἶπες. νυ 
εἰ οὖν σοι φίλον, μή με ἀποκρύψῃ, ἀλλὰ πάλιν εἰπὲ 
5 5 iad iO “Ὁ. x 4 » lal ε Ν an 
ἐξ ἀρχῆς; τί ποτε ὃν τὸ ὅσιον εἴτε φιλεῖται ὑπὸ θεῶν 
»” ἊΝ 
εἴτε ὁτιδὴ πάσχει" οὐ γὰρ περὶ τούτου διοισόμεθα" 
3 3 > \ , fa ἘΠῚ / Ψ Ν Ν 5 , 
ἀλλ᾽ εἰπὲ προθύμως, τί ἐστιν τό TE ὅσιον καὶ TO ἀνό- 


20 


σιον ; 

EYO. ᾿Αλλ᾽, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὐκ ἔχω ἔγωγε, ὅπως 
σοι εἴπω ὃ νοῶ. περιέρχεται γάρ πως ἡμῖν ἀεὶ ὃ ἂν 
25 προθώμεθα, καὶ οὐκ ἐθέλει μένειν ὅπου ἂν ἱδρυσώ- 
μεθα αὐτό. 


30. Τοῦ ἡμετέρου προγόνου, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, ἔοικεν 


11 Ain its definition as being essen- 
tial [z.e., what a thing ‘is’ when 
one wishes to define it]; every 
-other quality or possible predi- 
cate, as being non-essential or 


᾿ς The rule is to say οἶδά σε ὃς εἶ, 
and οὐκ οἶδα σε ὅστις εἶ. But 
ὅστις is not seldom found after 
an affirmative, and ὅς sometimes 
after a negative.” In Plato the 


τι Β 


‘accidental,’ is styled a πάθος. 
A similar mistake, in offering a 
πάθος for the οὐσία. is made by 
Polus in Gorg. 448 C (cp. 448 E). 

16. πέπονθε: added to 
explain the new term πάθος. 
whereas φιλεῖσθαι ὑπὸ πάντων 


“ 
οτι 


θεῶν serves to define ὅτι. See 
note on πάσχει; 10 C. 17. ὅτι 
Se dv: sc. φίλεϊῖται. Cp. τί 
ποτε ὃν . φιλεῖται. 1. το. 


The stress falls on ov as rep- 
resenting the unfamiliar term 
οὐσία. It seems difficult to re- 
duce the use of the interr. and 
the indef. rel. in indir. questions 
toarule. Often both are used 
side by side, as Gorg. 448 E τίς 
καὶ ὅντινα followed immediately 
(449 A) by tis... καὶ τίνα. 
Morris on Thue. 1. 136. 4 says, 


exceptions are very numerous. 
18. ἀποκρύψῃ: HA. 724; G. 
1069; B. 340. 20. εἴτε ὁτιδὴ 
πάσχει: ‘has any πάθος whatso- 
ever’; for ὁτιδή, see HA. 1002 a. 
23. 
is the interr. subj. in 
disc., GMT. 677. 24. 
cp. Lach. 194 AB. — περιέρχεται: 
‘walks about’; cp. 15 B, Badiov- 
τες. 27. TOU ἡμετέρου προγόνου 
... Δαιδάλου : cp. Jeno 97 DE. 
Anciently in Greece, though with 
far less regularity than in Egypt, 
the arts and trades passed from 
father to hence certain 
guilds called themselves by pa- 
tronymics, as, ¢.g., the Ὁμηρίδαι, 
or rhapsodes, who collectively 
called Homer their eponymous 
ancestor. See Symp. 186 E, 


, »" 
εἴπω: here εἴπω 

indir. 
ὃ νοῶ: 


“ 
OTTWS 


son ; 


MAATONOS [11 B 


74 
i if Ν ε Ν “ ’, Ν 3 Ν 
εἶναι Δαιδάλου τὰ ὑπὸ σοῦ | λεγόμενα καὶ εἰ μὲν ς 
> Ν 5 Ν »” ‘\ 5 , » » =) , 
αὐτὰ ἐγὼ ἔλεγον καὶ ἐτιθέμην, tows av pe ἐπέ 
Ν τ Ν ΄ 
σκωπτες, WS ἄρα καὶ ἐμοὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐκείνου ξυγγέ 


statement ironically, disclaiming 
responsibility for it.— κατὰ τὴν 
ἐκείνου ξυγγένειαν : ‘on acc. of my 


Theaet. 176 C. Δαίδαλος has 
the art. because he has already 
been mentioned. See App. 


7 Ν 5 A / » 3 / Ν > 
νειαν TA EV τοις λόγοις εργα ἀποδιδράσκει και OUK 
5 /, , 9 » 5» Ν ἰοὺ la) Ν Ν Ν 
ἐθέλει μένειν ὁοπου ἂν τις AUTA On 2 Yay δὲ σαν γὰρ 
CINE. Pr 5 “ » id lal I 
αἱ ὑποθέσεις εἰσίν. ἄλλου δή τινος δεῖ σκώμματος * 
οὐ γὰρ ἐθέλουσι σοὶ μένειν, ὡς καὶ αὐτῷ σοι δοκεῖ. 
35 ἘΕΥΘ. ᾿Βμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ σχεδόν τι τοῦ αὐτοῦ σκώμ- 
ματος, ὦ Σώκρατες, δεῖσθαι τὰ λεγόμενα: τὸ γὰρ 
περιιέναι τούτοις τοῦτο καὶ μὴ μένειν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ 
5» 5 ’ὔ 5 ε 2) / 5 Ἂν 7 ta ε 
οὐκ ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἐντιθείς, | ἀλλὰ σύ μοι δοκεῖς ὁ D 
11Β.4Κ. 7. 121 A. Socrates πεῖθ. relationship to him’; ἐκείνου is 11C_ 
humorously refers to the fact that | quite natural, as συγγενής also 
both his father Sophroniscusand takes the gen., HA. 754 d; 
he belonged to the guild of stat- G. 1144. 31. ἔργα : ‘works 
uaries, who might properly call of art, a common meaning. 
Daedalus their ancestor. Some 32. viv δὲ σαὶ ydp.. . εἰσίν: 
improvements in the design of ‘but as it is, why, the postulates 
statues, by which they were rep- are yourown.’ On yap, see HA. 
resented with arms free from 1050.4 a. There is no ellipsis. 
their sides and with legs sepa- Examples of viv δὲ... yap are 
rated, were ascribed to Daedalus. numerous: Afol. 38 B, Lach. 
See Ernst Kuhnert, “Waidalos; ΙΝ 19. 200) 2, e7o7 asym 
Ein Beitrag zur griech. Kiinst- Charm. 175 B, Symp. 180 C. 
lergesch.,” Jahro. fiir Phil..N.F. See Frohberger on Lys. 13. 62 
15, p- 185 ff. Similar stories (App.); RD. § 149. With vov 
abound in the legends of the δέ cp. 11 A above. 34. αὐτῷ 
saints originating in the Middle σοι: emphatic only, not reflexive, 
Ages; and even the myth of HA. 687. 36. δεῖσθαι : ‘call for.’ 
Pygmalion and Galatea, what- 37. τούτοις τοῦτο: τούτοις de- 
ever its connection with the pends on ἐντιθείς, and τοῦτο goes 
rites of Adonis, must have grown with τὸ περιιΐναι. the hyperba- 
out of some such motif. See ton being employed for the sake 
Overbeck, Gesch. der Plastik, 1. οἵ the paronomasia, HA. 1062. 
36. 38. δοκεῖς ὁ Δαίδαλος : sc. εἶναι. Ὁ 
ς 30. ὡς ἄρα: freq.introducesa Cp. οὐκ ἀναγκαῖόν σοι δοκεῖ. |. 51, 





40 


45 


11D 





τι ΕΠ ΕΥ̓ΘΥΦΡΩ͂Ν 


75 


Δαίδαλος: ἐπεὶ ἐμοῦ ye ἕνεκα ἔμενεν ἂν ταῦτα 
οὕτως. 

30. Κινδυνεύω ἄρα, ὦ ἑταῖρε, ἐκείνου τοῦ ἀνδρὸς 
δεινότερος γεγονέναι τὴν τέχνην τοσούτῳ, ὅσῳ ὁ μὲν 
τὰ αὑτοῦ μόνα ἐποίει οὐ μένοντα, ἐγὼ δὲ πρὸς τοῖς 
ἐμαυτοῦ, ὡς ἔοικε, καὶ τὰ ἀλλότρια. καὶ δῆτα τοῦτό 
μοι τῆς τέχνης ἐστὶ κομψότατον, ὅτι ἄκων εἰμὶ σοφός. 
ἐβουλόμην γὰρ ἄν μοι τοὺς λόγους μένειν καὶ ἀκινή- 
τως ἱδρῦσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς τῇ Δαιδάλου σοφίᾳ τὰ 
Ταντάλου χρήματα γενέσθαι. καὶ | τούτων μὲν ἅδην." 
ἐπειδὴ δέ μοι δοκεῖς σὺ τρυφᾶν, αὐτός σοι ξυμπρο- 


39. ἐμοῦ γε ἕνεκα: ‘if it de- 
pended on me’; cp. the colloq. 
phrase ‘for all of me.’ 42. τὴν 
mexvnvy: HA. 718; G. 1058; B. 


΄ eo Ὁ 5 
337-— τοσούτῳ, ὅσῳ : ὅσῳ stands 


here by attraction to τοσούτῳ, 


acc. to the usual phrase, although 
we should rather have expected 
ὅτι, as in τούτῳ, ὅτι, Afol. 21 D, 
29 Β. The constr. really amounts 
to an anacoluthon; and it would 
be easy to recast the sentence. 
We may imitate the Greek by 
saying, ‘I am so much more skill- 
ful, inasmuch as,’ etc. Schanz 
Camipares Xen. Cyr. 6. 2. 19. 
43. οὐ μένοντα: HA. 726; G. 


I08I. 45. τῆς τέχνης : depends 


on τοῦτο. Cp. Thuc. 2. 36. 4 ᾧπερ 
τῆς τέχνης ἐπίστευον. --- σοφός: 
here = δεινός, above; so, too, in 
1. 47 σοφίᾳ = ‘skill, art.’ 47. τὰ 
Ταντάλου χρήματα: the typical 
Dives appears in Plato under 
various names: Tantalus, Darius, 
Polycrates, Cinyras, and Midas. 
Here Ταντάλου is evidently 
chosen for the paronomasia 


with Δαιδάλου. 48. γενέσθαι: 
the μοί, in 1. 46, continues here. 
- τούτων μὲν ἅδην: enough of 
that, like Lat. sed haec hactenus. 
49. τρυφᾶν: ‘to be indolent,’ 
originally as a result of high- 
living or self-indulgence. Con- 
trast ξύντεινε σαυτόν, 12 A. Cp. 
12 A τρυφᾷς ὑπὸ πλούτου τῆς σο- 
dias. — ξυμπροθυμήσομαι. ὅπως: 
41 will aid you that you may,’ 
etc. Thus far Euthyphro has 
attempted to define holiness, but 
now is reduced to a confession 
of his inability. Socrates, there- 
fore, assumes a new role, and, 
whereas he has hitherto devoted 
himself chiefly to criticising 
Euthyphro’s_ definitions, now 
leads up to one which is all 
but reached, only to be left un- 
attained because Euthyphro can- 
not follow him. This fact is 
doubly significant: first, because 
it indicates that the contemplated 
answer to the question as to the 
nature of holiness is to be sbught 
by following up this clew; and, 


16 ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ 


ἘΠ 
OOLOU. 


{11 E 


50 θυμήσομαι [δεῖξαι], ὅπως av pe διδάξῃς περὶ τοῦ 
καὶ μὴ προαποκάμῃς " ἰδὲ γάρ, εἰ οὐκ ἀναγ- 


ο΄, - ΄ > a ΝΟ [δ᾽ 
KQLOV σοι δοκεῖ δίκαιον ειναι παν TO Οοσιον. 


EYO. "Epovye. 


x > > 3. Ν lal x δί Wd “Ὁ Ἂ Ν 
ΣΩ. Ap ουν καὶ πᾶν TO OLKQALOV OOLOV ; 1 TO μὲν 


11 Esecondly, because Plato, in his 


minor dialogues, does not allow 
Socrates to dogmatize, but leaves 
the final solution of the problem 
that has been started to the re- 
flection of the reader. 

50. ὅπως av pe διδάξῃς: 
ἘΠῚ 855 ἃ 913765 Givi 
348. Gorg. 481 A affords an ex- 
cellent example of constructions 
with verbs of effort. σι. εἰ οὐκ: 
HA. 1022 a. Socrates confi- 
dently expects an affirm. answer. 
54. ap ovv: in technical terms 
of logic, the question here relates 
to the conversion of universal 
propositions ; πᾶν τὸ ὅσιον δέ: 
καιον, ‘all holy is right,’ is a uni- 
versal affirmative proposition, in 
which the subject, πᾶν τὸ ὅσιον, 
is ‘distributed,’ that is to say, 
embraces everything holy ; 
whereas the predicate, δίκαιον, is 
‘not distributed,’ that is to say, 


does not embrace all that is 
right. Since in universal affir- 


mative propositions this is always 
the case, the two terms, subject 
and predicate, are not ‘ converti- 
ble,’ that is to say, cannot be 
directly identified, nor the propo- 
sition simply ‘converted. In 
other words, the predicate repre- 
sents the genus under which 
the subject—the species — is 
classed. In the present discus- 





sion, δίκαιον is the genus, torr E 


which the species τὸ ὅσιον is 
assumed to belong; but since 
this one species does not ex- 
haust the genus, it requires to 
be further defined in order to 
distinguish it from other species 
of the same genus. The accom- 
panying figure may serve to il- 
lustrate the thought : — 








A B E 
D G 
GC 7 


ABCD ΞξΞ τὸ ὅσιον : αἰδώς. 
AEKG = δίκαιον 


: δέος. 


In this discussion δίκαιον bears 
the wider sense of ‘right,’ and 
the question is: What is the 
precise relation of holiness (reli- 
gion) to the wider sphere of 
ethical conduct or moral obliga- 
tion? Owing to the circum- 
stance that the question of piety 
and impiety was to be reviewed 
by the court, something of the 
legal sense of δίκαιον may here 
attach to the term. It will be 
instructive to compare the defini- 
tions of the righteous and the 
pious (holy) man attributed to 
Socrates. Xen. Mem. 4. 6. 4 





12 ΑἹ 


ΕΥ̓ΘΥΦΡΩΝ 77 


΄ wr nw © 

55 ὅσιον πᾶν | δίκαιον, TO δὲ δίκαιον ov πᾶν ὅσιον, ἀλλὰ 
Ἂς Ν » “ [72 Ν ͵΄ Ν »” . 

TO μὲν αὐτοῦ ὅσιον, TO δέ TL Kat ἀλλο; 


60 τῆς σοφίας. 


5 [2 5 ln 
EYO. Οὐχ ἕπομαι, ὦ Σώκρατες, τοῖς λεγομένοις. 
Ν \ (2 , , ἊΝ > > ΄ x 
ΣΩ. Kat μὴν νεώτερός γέ μου εἶ οὐκ ἐλάττονι ἢ 
ν , 5 > ἃ δ an 
ὅσῳ σοφώτερος ἀλλ᾽, ὃ λέγω, τρυφᾷς ὑπὸ πλούτου 


2 3 > , “4 , \ 
αλλ΄, ὦ μακάριε, ξύντεινε σαυτόν καὶ 


γὰρ οὐδὲ χαλεπὸν κατανοῆσαι ὃ λέγω. λέγω γὰρ δὴ 


Se 7 KN i Ν 5 ΄ ε ΄ 
TO €VAVTLOV 7) O TOLNTNS ET OLY O EV O TOLNOAS — 


Υ Ἔν ty, Ν \ XN Ν ΄ 
11 Ε ἄρα τὰ περὶ τοὺς θεοὺς νόμιμα 





mutually 


εἰδὼς ὀρθῶς ἂν ἡμῖν εὐσεβὴς 


ὡρισμένος εἴη; Then we should 
be right in defining the pious man 
as the one who knows what its 
lawful in respect of the gods? 
lbid. 4. 6. 6 ὀρθῶς av ποτε apa 
c ’ ε Υ" , 

δριζοίμεθα ὁριζόμενοι δικαίους 
εἶναι τοὺς εἰδότας τὰ περὶ ἀνθρώ- 


“mous νόμιμα ; Then we should be 


right in defining the righteous 
(just) as those who know what 
is lawful in respect of men? 
Note, first, that the two virtues 
are entirely coordinate, having 
exclusive spheres. 
Note, also, that Socrates, as is 
his wont, reduces the virtues to 
a specific form of knowledge. 
In the Authyphro the virtue of 
piety is a specific form of the 
general exercise of righteousness, 
and knowledge does not enter 
into the definition. But see the 
fourth definition, 14 C. Gorg. 
507 A (καὶ μὴν περὶ μὲν ἀνθρώ- 
πους τὰ προσήκοντα πράττων 
δίκαι ἂν πράττοι, περὶ δὲ θεοὺς 
ὅσια) is purely Socratic. 

56. τὸ μὲν αὐτοῦ: sc. τοῦ δι- 
καίου, ‘one part of the right.’ 
— τὸ δέ τι kal ἄλλο: τι modifies 


τό, to mark its indef. character, 
HA. 654a; cp. Hipparch. 230 A 
τοῦ κέρδους TO μέν τι ἀγαθὸν εἶναι, 
τὸ δέτι κακόν. ἄλλο here is pred. 
(Ξ “15 different’) and καί is adv. 
57. οὐχ ἕπομαι: metaphorical ; 
in his rejoinder, Socrates takes 
it literally, in order to play on 
the words. Cp. “291. 39 B. 


58. οὐκ ἐλάττονι 4: here = το- 


govTw. 59. ὃ λέγω: for the 
PRES SCE ΟΠ ΠΡῈΣ Β9 ΤΣ ΠπῈ 


usage is common, esp. with ὅπερ, 
ὥσπερ. and ὡς. The reference is 
to 11 E.— ὑπὸ πλούτου: cp. 4 D. 
60. ὦ μακάριε: see note on 3 B. 
— ξύντεινε σαυτόν: ‘brace up.’ 
Cp. our collog. phrase, ‘to pull 
oneself together.’ 61. λέγω yap 
δή: ‘You see (yap δή) I say the 
reverse, etc. 62. τὸ ἐναντίον 7: 
HAY 1045; bb: RD. $173. Ep: 
Phaedo 115 D, Gorg. 481 C, ete. 
— ὁ ποιητὴς ἐποίησεν ὁ ποιήσας: 
note the paronomasia. 6 ποιήη- 
τής usually means Homer; not 
so in this instance. 
probably reflects Plato’s uncer- 
tainty as to the poet’s name. 
The poem in question is the 
Cypria (so called because it orig- 
inated on Cyprus?), one of the 


ε , 
ο ποιῆσας 


12 


12 


65 


72 


75 


78 


MAATONOS 


[12A 


Ζῆνα δὲ τόν θ᾽ ἕρξαντα, καὶ ὃς τάδε πάντ᾽ ἐφύτευσεν, | 


οὐκ ἐθέλεις εἰπεῖν * ἵνα γὰρ δέος, ἔνθα καὶ αἰδώς. 


ἐγὼ οὖν τούτῳ διαφέρομαι τῷ ποιητῇ. 


ὅπῃ ; 
EY®. Πάνυ γε. 


¥ 
€LT@ σοι 


a “- ΄ » Ν 3 la 
30. Οὐ δοκεῖ por εἶναι, wa δέος. ἔνθα Kai αἰδώς" 


Ἀ - ἴω ον ’ὔ εἶ , A 
TohAoOL yap μοι δοκοῦσι καὶ νόσους καὶ πενίας καὶ 
ἄλλα πολλὰ τοιαῦτα δεδιότες δεδιέναι μέν, αἰδεῖσθαι 


δὲ μηδὲν ταῦτα, ἃ δεδίασιν. 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Πάνυ γε. 


5 Ν ον ὃ a 
OU και σοι OOKEL 5 


20. "ANN ἵνα ye αἰδώς, ἔνθα καὶ δέος εἶναι" ἐπεὶ 


ν 5 / A Δ > / 
ἔστιν οστις αἰδούμενός τι πβραγμα και αισχυνόομεένος 


οὐ πεφόβηταί τε καὶ | δέδοικεν ἅμα δόξαν πονηρίας ; 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Δέδοικε μὲν οὖν. 


ΣΩ. Οὐκ ap’ ὀρθῶς ἔχει λέγειν: ἵνα γὰρ δέος, 


ἔνθα καὶ αἰδώς - ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα μὲν αἰδώς, ἔνθα καὶ δέος, 


12 Α ‘epic cycle,’ having for its sub- 


ject the events which preceded 
the story told in the Iliad. Its 
authorship was in doubt even 
among the best-informed critics 
of antiquity. 

63. Ζῆνα δὲ τόν θ᾽ ἕρξαντα: 
of Zeus, who hath created and 
begotten the world, thou wilt 
not speak; for where fear 7s, 
there also is reverence. The 
poet seems only to have meant 
that fear and reverence forbid 
one to speak of Zeus; but Plato 
here, as elsewhere, does not 
scruple to do violence to the 
poet’s thought if he may thereby 
point his own moral. Cp. Lyszs 
212 Εἰ. Pro. 339.) foll:, ΠΕΣ 
191 B. In the argument αἰδώς 


is a species of the genus δέος. 
65. τούτῳ... . . Te ποιητῇ: the 
words go together; for the dat., 
see HAC 72°" G. Πῆ ema Cee 
68. οὐ δοκεῖ μοι εἶναι: εἶναι = 
‘to be true,’ as Adam says; but 
he is prob. 1n error when he 
says that εἶναι has the same 
meaning in ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ye αἰδώς, 
ἔνθα καὶ δέος εἶναι, in 1. 73. 
70. δεδιέναι: HA. 849 Ὁ; G. 
1263; B. 5353 ‘GS. 1230. ae 
πεφύβηται, 1. 75. — αἰδεῖσθαι δὲ 
pndév: see notes on μηδὲν εἰδέ- 
va, 6 A, and on οὐδὲν 8 C. 
77. οὖς ἄρ᾽... ἄλλ᾽ iva... od 
μέντοι: note the palindromic turn. 
Cp. notes on 3 C above, καίτοι 

. GAN ὅμως, and 13 D, οὐχ 
ἡγούμενος. 


12A 





12 D] ΕὙΘΥΦΡΩΝ 


79 


>’ , ν ’ὕ “A -} 4 5 \ , 
οὐ μέντοι Wa γε δέος, πανταχοῦ αἰδώς. ἐπὶ πλέον 
γάρ, οἶμαι, δέος αἰδοῦς - μόριον γὰρ αἰδὼς δέους, 
ὥσπερ ἀριθμοῦ περιττόν, ὥστε οὐχ ἵναπερ ἀριθμός, 
» θ Ν ’,ὕ ν δὲ , Y¥ Se: / 
ἔνθα καὶ περιττόν, ἵνα δὲ περιττόν, ἔνθα καὶ ἀριθμός. 
ἕπει γάρ που νῦν γε; 

ΕἘΥΘ. Πάνυ γε. 

85 OQ. To τοιοῦτον τοίνυν Kat ἐκεῖ λέγων ἠρώτων, 
dpa wa δίκαιον, ἔνθα καὶ ὅσιον, ἢ ἵνα μὲν ὅσιον. 
» Ν 7 . Ν ΄ > “ 
ἔνθα καὶ | δίκαιον, ἵνα δὲ δίκαιον, οὐ πανταχοῦ Ὁ 
ὅσιον" μόριον γὰρ τοῦ δικαίου τὸ ὅσιον. οὕτω 
φῶμεν ἢ ἄλλως σοι δοκεῖ ; 

EY®. Οὐκ, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτω“ 

λέγειν. 


90 φαίνει γάρ μοι ὀρθῶς 

XIV. 30. Ὅρα δὴ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο. εἰ γὰρ μέρος 

Ν ν na “ἢ la Ν ε A ε y > “ 

τὸ ὅσιον τοῦ δικαίου, δεῖ δὴ ἡμᾶς, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἐξευρεῖν 

A 3 ¥ “ ο 

τὸ ποῖον μέρος ἂν εἴη τοῦ δικαίου τὸ ὅσιον. εἰ μὲν 

οὖν σύ με ἠρώτας τι τῶν νῦν δή. οἷον ποῖον μέρος 

5 ἐστὶν ἀριθμοῦ τὸ ἄρτιον καὶ τίς ὧν τυγχάνει οὗτος ὁ 

> , aN + ν ἃ x \ Ν ΝΣ 3 3 

ἀριθμός, εἶπον αν, OTL ὃς ἂν μὴ σκαληνὸς ἢ, ἀλλ 
ἰσοσκελής : ἢ οὐ δοκεῖ σοι; 


120 ΘΟ, τς 


Meno 87 C τὸ δὴ μετὰ τοῦτο. 3. τὸ 
ποῖον μέρος : the art. calls for @ 
strict definition. Cp. Gorg. 463 C 
4. οἷον : ‘as, for 
οὗτος ὁ ἀριθμός: 
εἶπον 


79. ἵνα ye: cp. l. 73, above. τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο: Cp. 12D 
ye follows ἵνα in order to em- 
phasize the precise relation, just 
as is done by ἵναπερ in 1]. δι. 
Cp. εἴ ye, τῳ E, and διότι ye, 
Io D.—émi πλέον xrd.: ‘for 
fear has greater (logical) exten- 
sion than reverence.’ 81. πε- 
pittév: περιττόν (= odd) and 


ἄρτιον (=even) were familiar to 


ὁποῖον μόριον. 
example.’ 5. 
sc. ὃ ἄρτιος ἀριθμός. 6. 
av: for the aor., see HA. 895 Ὁ; 
B. 606; GMT. 414. — σκαληνὸς 

. . ἰσοσκελής : note that arith- 





the Greeks as the constituent 
elements of number; cp. Gorg. 
451 B. 85. τὸ τοιοῦτον κτλ.: 
‘it was something of that sort I 
meant when I asked.’ He refers 
to 11 E foll. “ 


metical relations are represented 
by geometrical. This is not un- 
common in Greek, and for ob- 
vious reasons: first, the Greeks 
visualizers, and 
geometry 


strong 
developed 


were 
therefore 


IO 


15 


80 ΠΛΑΤΩΏΝΟΣ [12 D 


EY. Ἔμοιγε. 
XQ. Πειρῶ δὴ καὶ σὺ ἐμὲ | οὕτω διδάξαι, τὸ ποῖον 
7 ἴω 7 ν ’, 5 ν Ν Ta ye) 
μέρος Tov δικαίου ὅσιόν ἐστιν, ἵνα καὶ Μελήτῳ λέγω- 
2» ε A 5 la) Ν 5 7 , 
μεν μηκέθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἀδικεῖν μηδὲ ἀσεβείας γράφεσθαι, 
an » las 5 lal 
ὡς ἱκανῶς ἤδη Tapa σοῦ μεμαθηκότας τά TE εὐσεβὴ 
καὶ ὅσια καὶ τὰ μή. 
ΕΥ̓Θ. Τοῦτο τοίνυν ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ, ὦ Σώκρατες, τὸ 
μέρος τοῦ δικαίου εἶναι εὐσεβές τε καὶ ὅσιον, τὸ περὶ 
\ la a , Ν \ \ SS a > Va 
τὴν τῶν θεῶν θεραπείαν - τὸ δὲ περὶ THY τῶν ἀνθρώ- 


Ν Ν <> la , , 
πων TO λοιπὸν ειναυ του δικαίου Epos. 


12D before arithmetic; again, their 


methods of numerical notation 
were so inadequate and cum- 
brous (they only approached 
algebraic symbols quite late in 
their history), that all problems 
capable of a geometrical solu- 
tion were treated preferably by 
that method. Note that, in the 
triangles, the base line is disre- 
garded altogether. The princi- 
ple of διχοτομία. (equal division 
by two), which was represented 
by πέρας)ί(ἀπειρον, περιττόν) 
ἄρτιον, τετράγωνον χέτερόμηκες, 
ἰσοσκελές)(σκαληλόν [see Ritter- 
Preller 55], played an impor- 
tant part in the mathematical 
speculations of the Pythagoreans, 
in which Plato took a lively in- 
terest. 

10. λέγωμεν: = κελεύωμεν. 
Note the constr. 12. μεμαθη- 
κότας: cp. Gorg. 488 A ἐγὼ 
yap εἴ τι μὴ ὀρθῶς πράττω κατὰ 
τὸν βίον τὸν ἐμαυτοῦ, εὖ ἴσθι 
τοῦτο ὅτι οὐχ ἑκὼν ἐξαμαρτάνω 
ἀλλ᾽ ἀμαθίᾳ τῇ ἐμῇ, ‘If I do 
aught amiss in the conduct of 


my life, rest assured that I do12 E 


so not intentionally but through 
ignorance.’ These words of Soc- 
rates formed Plato’s ethical creed 
as well. To know, for them, 
was to do. (Cp.the note above 
on 11 E.) Hence if Meletus is 
convinced that Socrates is better 
instructed, he must trust him in 
future and not prosecute him for 
impiety. See Introd. § 2. 
THIRD DEFINITION: ‘ Holi- 
ness is that form of right con- 
duct which relates to the service 
of the gods.” Euthyphro heartily 
adopts the suggestion of Soc- 
rates that τὸ ὅσιον is a species of 
the genus δίκαιον and proceeds 
to distinguish this species from 
other species by giving the 
specific differentia. As there is 
great ambiguity in the term θερα- 
πεία, Socrates sets out to dis- 
close and remove it. It is inter- 
esting to note that the Stoics 
who, like Euthyphro, laid great 
stress on divination and the 
formal aspects of religion, are 
quoted as saying (Laert. Diog. 7. 


Ιο 


15 


13 Β] 


ΕΥ̓ΘΥΦΡΩΝ 


81 


XV. 30. Καὶ καλῶς γέ μοι, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, φαίνει 


λέγειν." ἀλλὰ | σμικροῦ τινος ἔτι ἐνδεής εἰμι. 
γὰρ θεραπείαν οὔπω ξυνίημι ἥντινα ὀνομάζεις. 


τὴν 


> 
OU 


yap που λέγεις γε, οἷαίπερ καὶ αἱ περὶ τὰ adda θερα- 


Ὁ 7 > ΄ ὡς Ν ’ὔ 
TELAL εἰσιν. τοιαυτὴν και πέρι θεούς. 


λέγομεν γάρ 


A - ΄ Ψ > nA > 
ποῦ -- οἷον φαμέν, ἵππους ov πᾶς ἐπίσταται θερα- 


, 3 NT ee (δ i, 
πεύειν, ἀλλὰ ὁ ἱππικὸς" 
BY. Πάνυ γε. 


ἢ γάρ; 


ΣΩ. “H yap που ἱππικὴ ἵππων θεραπεία. 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Nat. 


ΣΩ. Οὐδέ γε κύνας πᾶς ἐπίσταται θεραπεύειν, ἀλλὰ 


ὁ κυνηγετικός. 
EY®. Οὕτω. 


30. Ἢ γάρ που κυνηγετικὴ κυνῶν θεραπεία. | 


EYO. Nat. 


30. Ἢ δέ ye βοηλατικὴ βοῶν. 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Πάνυ γε. 


ε Ν “ 
ΣΩ. “H δὲ δὴ ὁσιότης τε καὶ εὐσέβεια θεῶν, ὦ 


Εὐθύφρον ; οὕτω λέγεις ; 


> / 
12 E119) εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἐπιστή- 


1474. 





μην θεῶν θεραπείας. which, as in- 
troducing ἐπιστήμη; is nearer the 
Socratic view. Cp. note on 11 E. 

XV. 1. Kak@s: see note on 
2. σμικροῦ KTA.: cp. Pro- 
tag. 329 B “σμικροῦ τινος ἐνδεής 
εἰμι πάντ᾽ ἔχειν. --- τὴν γὰρ pee 
πείαν κτλ. : acase of prolepsis. ἦν- 
twa, for which we might have had 
τίνα (see note on 11 B), classi- 
ΠΕ τ GS. 130. So in Lat. 
guis is roughly used for gwzalis ; 
cp. oiaizep, 1. 4, and τοιαύτην, 
1. 5, τίνα and τοιαύτην, 13 D. 
6. οἷον : cp. οἷον τοιόνδε, 13 B. 
RD.§ 16. The constr. is changed 


EUTHYPHRO — 6 


> 


to avoid a didactic statement: 
an illustration, in the true So- 
cratic manner, has the prefer- 
ence, in order to lead up gradu- 
ally to the inference. 9. 
SC. τέχνη 3 just SO, too, κυνηγετική, 
βοηλατική; etc.— ἵππων θεραπεία: 
ep, Ales 1 122 A, Gore. εὐὸ Ὁ f., 
Meno 93 D. 16. ἣ δὲ βοηλα- 
τικὴ βοῶν : sc. θεραπεία ; the same 
word is to be supplied with Gear, 
1.18. Socrates loved to ring the 
changes ona few homely examples 
drawn from the life of herdsmen, 
cobblers, etc., and so became the 
butt of ridicule ; see Gorvg. 491 A, 
Symp. 221 E, Xen. Men. 1. 2. 37. 


᾿ , 
ἱππική: 


13 


B 


20 


25 


30 


35 


40 


13 Β 


82 MAATONOS 


EYO. "Eywye. 

32. Οὐκοῦν θεραπεία ye πᾶσα ταὐτὸν διαπράτεται; 
e , > > 5 “ , 5 Ν 5» 7 Lal 
οἷον τοιόνδε: ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῷ τινί ἐστι καὶ ὠφελίᾳ τοῦ 

’ ν ε “A - 9 ε ν «ε ἣν 

θεραπευομένου, ὥσπερ ὁρᾷς δή, ὅτι οἱ ἵπποι ὑπὸ 
al an , oe S 
τῆς ἱππικῆς θεραπευόμενοι ὠφελοῦνται Kai βελτίους 
γίγνονται: ἢ οὐ δοκοῦσί σοι; 

ΕΥΘ. “Epovye. 

ΣΩ. Καὶ οἱ κύνες γέ που ὑπὸ τῆς κυνηγετικῆς. 

\ ε ΄ ἘΝ a rn \ > 3 
καὶ ot βόες ὑπὸ τῆς βοηλατικῆς, | Kat τἄλλα πάντα 
ε ΄ Δ Ses ΄ » la 7 \ 
ὡσαύτως - ἢ ἐπὶ βλάβῃ ove τοῦ θεραπευομένου τὴν 
θεραπείαν εἶναι ; 

ΕΥΘ. Μὰ Δί᾽ οὐκ ἔγωγε. 

ΣΩ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὠφελίᾳ ; 

EY®. Πῶς δ᾽ οὖ; 

ΣΩ. Ἦ οὖν καὶ ἡ ὁσιότης θεραπεία οὖσα θεῶν 
ὠφελία τέ ἐστι θεῶν καὶ βελτίους τοὺς θεοὺς ποιεῖ ; 
καὶ σὺ τοῦτο ξυγχωρήσαις ἄν, ὡς ἐπειδάν τι ὅσιον 
ποιῇς, βελτίω τινὰ τῶν θεῶν ἀπεργάζει ; 

ΕΥ̓Θ. Μὰ Δί οὐκ ἔγωγε. 

ΣΩ. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγώ, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, οἶμαί σε τοῦτο 
λέγειν - πολλοῦ καὶ δέω: ἀλλὰ τούτου δὴ ἕνεκα καὶ 
ἀνηρόμην, τίνα ποτὲ | λέγοις τὴν θεραπείαν τῶν θεῶν, 
οὐχ ἡγούμενός σε τοιαύτην λέγειν. 


22. οἷον τοιόνδε: ΗΑ. 626 Ὁ: 
G. 915; Β. 318. Soalso Gorg. 


mon in Plato; cp. Symp. 202 C, 
Phaedr. 241. 19. 275 (Dy Ἐπ 


464 A, Rep. 331 C. More com- 
monly τὸ τοιόνδε. 23. ὥσπερ 
épas δή: ὑ». Hepa, 421 A. 
ὅτ μὰ Δ: ΤΠ 725: (ὁ τοῦδ; 


Β. 344. 36. ξυγχωρήσαις ἄν: 
potential opt.. HA. 872; G. 
122716 ΒΒ. 052; (Go. 436-5 me 


old-fashioned ending -αἰς is com- 


40. πολλοῦ καὶ δέω : pers. for the 
more common impers. constr., 
HA. 743 b; G. 1116; RD. § 259. 
42. οὐχ ἡγούμενος : a palindromic 
turn, repeating οὐδὲ yap ἐγώ... 
οἶμαι. Such returns are frequent 
in Plato. Cp. notes on 3 C and 
12 B. 





45 


δο 


13 D] 


EYOY®PON 


83 


EYO. Καὶ ὀρθῶς ye, ὦ Σώκρατες ' ov yap τοιαύτην 


λέγω. 


ΣΩ. Εἶεν: ἀλλὰ τίς δὴ θεῶν θεραπεία εἴη ἂν ἡ 


ὁσιότης ; 


EYO. ἭΠιπερ, ὦ Σώκρατες, οἱ δοῦλοι τοὺς δεσπότας 


θεραπεύουσιν. 


/ 
30. Μανθάνω ὑπηρετική τις av, ws ἔοικεν, εἴη 


θεοῖς. 
EY. Πάνυ μὲν οὖν. 


XVI. 30. Ἔχοις ἂν οὖν εἰπεῖν, ἡ ἰατροῖς ὑπηρε- 


47. ἧπερ: cp. Xen. Hell. 2. 
3. 14 ἐθεράπευον πάσῃ θεραπείᾳ. 
49. μανθάνω : see note on 3 B. — 
ὑπηρετική τις. . . θεοῖς : ὑπηρε- 
τική is subst. GS. 33 ; for the dat., 


"see HA. 765 a; G. 1174; B. 393. 


So, too, δόσεως θεοῖς 14 C, ὑπη- 
ρεσία τοῖς θεοῖς 14 D, δῶρα τοῖς 
θεοῖς 15 A. Holiness is here 
called a weinistration to Deity 
rather than a service or tendance 


᾿(θεραπεία) ostensibly to obviate 


misapprehension ; but in reality, 
I think, to point the connection 
of the argument at this stage 
with the plea of the Afology. 
There Socrates put forth every 
effort to show that he bore a 
commission from God to lead 
his special form of the philo- 
sophic (or religious) life, which 
to him constituted the very es- 
sence of piety. The plea culmi- 
nates in 30 A, where he declares, 
“This will I do to whomsoever 
I may meet, be he young or old, 
stranger or fellow-townsman, and 
to you, my fellow-citizens, by as 


much more as ye are nearer of 13 Ὁ 


kin to me. For such, I assure 
you, is the command of God, 
and I am persuaded that never 
has there befallen you in our city 
a greater blessing than this my 
ministration to the God (τὴν 
ἐμὴν TO θεῷ ὑπηρεσίαν, cp. Euth. 
14 D αὕτη ἡ ὑπηρεσία. .. τοῖς 
θεοῖς). By interpreting our pas- 
sage in the light of the foregoing, 
we obtain an insight into the 
meaning of both. Socrates’ life 
is the type of the holy life; and 
when Socrates asks for the exd 
to be realized by man’s ministra- 
tion to Deity, the answer is sug- 
gested by the exd which he 
sought to attain. For in Afpol. 
30 A (continuing where we just 
left off) he said, ‘ For I go about 
with no other business but this, 
to plead with you, young and 
old, not to have more regard for 
your bodies nor for wealth than 
for the soul, that it may be 
as good as possible.” See the 
Introd. §§ 5 and 6. 


ΙοΟ 


15 


166} Ὁ) 


84 


TAATONOS 


[13D 


τικὴ εἰς τίνος ἔργου ἀπεργασίαν τυγχάνει οὖσα ὑπη- 


> ΄ ¥ 
PETLKY ; οὐκ εἰς ὑγιείας οἴει ; 


EY®. "Eywye. 


30. Τί δέ; ἡ ναυπηγοῖς ὑπηρετικὴ εἰς τίνος | ἔρ- 


γου ἀπεργασίαν ὑπηρετική ἐστιν ; 


EY@. Δῆλον ὅτι, ὦ Σώκρατες, εἰς πλοίου. 


> / 2) > iA 
ΣΌ; Καὶ ἢ οἰκοδόμοις γέ ποῦ εἰς οἰκίας ; 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Ναί. 


SQ. Εἰπὲ δή, ὦ ἄριστε: ἡ δὲ θεοῖς ὑπηρετικὴ εἰς 


τίνος ἔργου ἀπεργασίαν ὑπηρετικὴ ἂν ein; δῆλον 
γὰρ ὅτι σὺ οἶσθα, ἐπειδήπερ τά γε θεῖα κάλλιστά γε 


\ > , =) , 
pns εἰδέναι ἀνθρώπων. 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Καὶ ἀληθῆ γε λέγω, ὦ Σώκρατες. 


5 lal x 
SQ. Εἰπὲ δὴ πρὸς Διός, τί ποτέ ἐστιν ἐκεῖνο TO 


΄ » ἃ ε \ > ΄ Gini ε 
πάγκαλον εργον, O οι θεοὶ ἀπεργάζονται μιν υπη- 


ρέταις χρώμενοι; 


ΝΠ 2: 
γασίαν : cp. ἡ περὶ τίνων διαφορά, 
7 Β. Here is broached the matter 
of the ἔργον. which has great sig- 
nificance to Plato’s thought. It 
is that which is effected by an 
action, and, indeed, that which, 
as an end, determines the means 
to its accomplishment. Origi- 
nating in art, the term acquired 
a large use in ethics, and, with 
Plato and Aristotle, always looks 
to the Good as the supreme end 
of rational and moral endeavor. 
Cp. Rep. 352 E-353 B, Gorg. 
468 B, 499 E for its connection 
with τὸ ἀγαθόν and ἀρετή. Cp. 
also Gorg. 503 E, Craft. 389, and 
Xen. Oecon. 1. 2. In the note 
on p. 83 attention was called 
to Socrates’ cure of souls, which 


εἰς τίνος ἔργου ἀπερ- 


he regarded as the object of 13D 


greatest moment (cp. Gorg. 477 
B foll.); with the reference to 
the ἔργον. the final goal of holi- 
ness is raised a step higher, and 
the realization of the Supreme 
Good in human society is sug- 
gested as its object. That, how- 
ever, is the assimilation of the 
individual soul to God (Theaet. 
176 AB) and, for society, the 
ultimate approximation to the 
ideal of righteousness sketched 
in the Republic. Euthyphro 
does not catch the hint. 43. els 
ὑγιείας : Sc. ἀπεργασίαν ; SO, too, 
with εἰς πλοίου and εἰς οἰκίας, 
13 Ε. 8. ἢ οἰκοδόμοις : sc. ὑπη- 
ρετική. 12. τά γε θεῖα κάλλιστά 
ye: note the repetition of ye. 


Ast’s Lex. cites many examples. Ὁ 





20 


25 


30 


13" 


14 A ties. 


14 Β] 


EY@. Πολλὰ καὶ καλά, ὦ Σώκρατες. 


EYOY®PQN 85 


30. Kat yap | ot στρατηγοί, ὦ φίλε: ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως 


Ν , ἊΨ Νυνὶ ε ἢ x » -“ , 5) lal 
TO κεφάλαιον αὐτῶν ῥᾳδίως ἂν εἴποις, OTL νικὴν ἐν τῷ 


΄ > , Ἃ » 
πολέμῳ ἀπεργάζονται: ἢ οὐ; 


» 


EY. Πῶς ὃ ov; 


SOQ. Πολλὰ δέ γ᾽, οἶμαι, καὶ καλὰ καὶ οἱ γεωργοί: 


3 7_ 9 Ν » > ΜΝ 3 ον 3 a 
ἀλλ᾽ ὁμῶς τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτῶν ἐστιν τῆς ἀπεργασίας 


ἡ ἐκ τῆς γῆς τροφή. 
ΕΥ̓Θ. Πάνυ γε. 


ΣΩ. Τί δὲ δὴ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ καλῶν ἃ οἱ θεοὶ 


5 4 γιὰ ἊΝ Ἂ ΄ 5 ins 5 / 
ἀπεργάζονται jute. TO κεφάλαιόν εστι τὴς ἐργασιας ; 
‘ > > 
EYO. Kat ὀλίγον σοι πρότερον €LTOV, ὦ Σώκρατες, 


ν ’, », > Ν > A , Lal ε 
ὅτι πλείονος ἔργου ἐστὶν ἀκριβῶς | πάντα ταῦτα ὡς 
ἔχει μαθεῖν - τόδε μέντοι σοι ἁπλῶς λέγω, ὅτι ἐὰν 


18. πολλὰ καὶ καλά: Euthy- 
‘ phro, not knowing precisely what 
to say, takes refuge in generali- 
19. οἱ στρατηγοί: again 
one is forcibly reminded of Soc- 
rates’ plea before the court; see 
Afpol.28 DE. 20. τὸ κεφάλαιον 
αὐτῶν: a case of brachylogy; 
Cp. TO κεφάλαιον αὐτῶν ἐστι τῆς 
ἀπεργασίας.]. 24. It is possible, 
but not probable, that κεφάλαιον 
(sc. ἔργον) is an adj. Schanz 
supplies τῆς ἀπεργασίας ; with- 
out the addition, αὐτῶν is to be 
constr. like τῆς τέχνης. 11 D. See 
App. 23. ot γεωργοί: cp. Rep. 
333 A. 24. αὐτῶν: hyperbaton. 
27. τί δὲ δή: see note on 7 D. 
—T@v πολλῶν Kal καλῶν: cp. 
Gorg. 509 Ὁ ri δὲ δὴ τοῦ ἀδικεῖν ; 
this is a free use of the gen., to 
premise mention of a thing, RD. 
§ 27. For other examples, see 
Rep. 459 B, 470 A, 515 B, Phaedo 





78 D, ete. There is no ellipsis 
of περί, as some have thought. 
28. τῆς ἐργασίας : cp. ἀπεργα- 
σίας. above, 1]. 24. It is common 
thus to employ the simple for 
the compound verb or noun when 
it has just been used. For ex- 
amples in Plato, see C77¢o 44 D, 
Phaedo 104 D, Theaet. 178 A, 
Soph. 267 Af.,etc. In Euripides, 
Med. 1252 xarider ἴδετε, Alc. 
400 ὑπάκουσον ἄκουσον, Lacch. 
1065 κατῆγεν ἦγεν ἦγεν cis μέλαν 
πέδον. 29. ὀλίγον... πρότερον: 
ing B; for ὀλίγον. see HA. 781 ἃ. 
30. πλείονος ἔργου : cp. 9 B ἀλλ᾽ 
ἴσως οὐκ ὀλίγον ἔργον ἐστίν. where 
see note. —mavra ταῦτα KTA.: 
‘to learn how all these matters 
stand.’ 31. ‘ simply,’ 
‘without qualification.’ — ἐὰν μὲν 
κεχαρισμένα: not a new defini- 
tion, but a rhetorical restatement 
of that offered in 12 E. 





ἁπλῶς: 


14 


B 


14A 


86 ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ [148 





μὲν κεχαρισμένα τις ἐπίστηται τοῖς θεοῖς λέγειν τε 
καὶ πράττειν εὐχόμενός τε καὶ θύων, ταῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὰ ᾿ 
ὅσια, καὶ σῴζει τὰ τοιαῦτα τούς τε ἰδίους οἴκους καὶ 
τὰ κοινὰ τῶν πόλεων: τὰ δ᾽ ἐναντία τῶν κεχαρισμένων 
9 κὰν ΝΑ N Na) ΄' 7 X03 ΄ 
ἀσεβῆ, ἃ δὴ καὶ ἀνατρέπει ἅπαντα καὶ ἀπόλλυσιν. 

XVII. 30. Ἦ πολύ μοι διὰ βραχυτέρων, ὦ Εὐθύ- 

>, 3 , ΗΝ Ἃ Ν ΄ - 5 , 

pov, εἰ ἐβούλου, εἶπες ἂν TO κεφάλαιον ὧν ἠρώτων. 
ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐ πρόθυμός με εἶ διδάξαι. δῆλος εἶ. καὶ 
γὰρ νῦν | ἐπειδὴ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ ἦσθα, ἀπετράπου: ὃ εἰ C 


35 


A > + “ \ 
5 ἀπεκρίνω, ἱκανῶς ἂν ἤδη Tapa σοῦ THY ὁσιότητα 


ἐμεμαθήκη. 


5» , 3 A ν x 3 ~ ε / 4 
ερωτωμένῳ ἀκολουθεῖν, O77) αν €EKEWOS uTayy) * τι 


νῦν δὲ ἀνάγκη γὰρ τὸν ἐρωτῶντα τῷ 


14B 432. λέγειν κτλ. : εὐχόμενος kas, Crito 44 1), 46 D; and see 14 B 


takes up λέγειν, as θύων takes up 


noteon7B. 4. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἦσθα: 


πράττειν. 34. σῳΐει τὰ τοιαῦτα: ‘you were hard by it’; ‘you 
this remark is aside from the were hot,’ the children say. 


subject, and is not regarded by 
Socrates. It is a favorite com- 
monplace with the moralists ; cp. 
Minos 314 D, Arist. Με. 13607 
IQs ΟΣ. M200" 7 il. ὙΠ alos 
Heraclitus apud Laert. Diog. 9. 2. 
As the Greek state was founded 
on religion, its salvation was 
believed to depend on the piety 
of the citizens. Cp. the noble ode 
of Horace, C. III. 6. Strangely 
enough, some critics have re- 
garded this trite saying as the 
key to the definition of holiness. 
36. ἀνατρέπει: cp. (7,270 50 B. 
XVII. 1. πολύ: belongs to 
βραχυτέρων. 3. ἀλλὰ yap: ΗΑ. 
1050.4 d; RD. §§ 147, 149. 
— δῆλος ef: asyndetically added, 


Socrates exhausts his vocabulary 
in trying to convince Euthyphro 
that the true definition of holi- 
ness is to be found by following 
the clew just obtained, rather 
than by grasping at a new one. 
See the notes on 13 D. 6. épe- 
μαθήκη: for the tense, see HA. 
895; (ἃ. 1397; B.606; cp. Aol. 
36 C.— viv δὲ... yap: see note 
on 11 (. --- τὸν ἐρωτῶντα κτλ.: 
following the lead of the argu- 
ment is a commonplace in Plato 
(Rep. 365 D, 394 D, 410 B, 415 D, 
Phaedo 82 D, 115 B, Gorg. 527 E, 
etc.). See App. 7. ἐκεῖνος : re- 
fers to TO ἐρωτωμένῳ. --- ὑπάγῃ: 
vrro- suggests that one is follow- 
ing a path whose end is not 


as Prot. 339 E δίκαιος εἶ, Cp. in sight. The suggestion is in 
HA. 1039; RD. § 207. Note harmony with the thought of 


the pers. for impers. constr., HA. 
944 ἃ. Cp. Gorg. 474 C as ἔοι- 


Cp. 


following the argument. 
Phaedo 82 D. 


10 


a5 


Ὁ 


14 D] 


ΕΥ̓ΘΥΦΡΩΝ 


87 


os > , Seg, > \ \ ε , ae EN 
Y) Qu λέγεις TO OOLOV ELVAL και Τὴν ΟσιοτΉΤα ; ουχι 


5 / Ν lal , \ ΕἾ 
ἐπι σ ΤΉ μὴν τινα TOU θύειν TE και εὔχεσθαι ; 


EYO. Ἔγωγε. 


ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν τὸ θύειν δωρεῖσθαί ἐστι τοῖς θεοῖς, τὸ 


3 » 5 fo] Ν 4 
ὃ εὔχεσθαι QLULTELY TOUS θεούς ; 


ΕΥ̓Θ. Καὶ μάλα, ὦ Σώκρατες. 


5 72 » 5 ’ ον “ 
ΣΩ. ᾿πιστήμη apa αἰτήσεως καὶ δόσεως θεοῖς | 
xX x Ta 
ὁσιότης ἂν εἴη EK τούτου τοῦ λόγου. 


, lal > Cn > 
EY®. Πάνυ καλῶς, ὦ Σώκρατες, EvvyjKas ὃ εἶπον. 
3 \ , > > A ΡΥ 
ΣΩ. ᾿Ιπιθυμητὴς γάρ εἰμι, ὦ φίλε, τῆς σῆς σοφίας 
\ a A Y ἘΞ 
καὶ προσέχω τὸν νοῦν αὐτῇ. ὥστε οὐ χαμαὶ πεσεῖται 


7) Ἃ » 
OTL QV Εὐ1γ) ς. 


ἐκείνοις ; 
EYO. Ἔγωγε. 


FourRTH DEFINITION: ‘ Holi- 
ness is the art or the science 
of sacrifice and prayer.’ This 
definition is closely akin to that 
attributed to Socrates by Xen. 
Mem. 4. 6. 4 (see note on 11 E) 
and it is probable that it fairly 
represents the common unphilo- 
sophical views of the Greeks. 


’ Socrates extracts it from the last 


proposition of Euthyphro, omit- 

ting the notion κεχαρισμένα. only 

to show that it is inherent in the 

general view, in 15 B. Compare 

14 Β ἐπίστηται... εὐχόμενός τε 

καὶ θύων with our definition, ἐπι- 

στήμην τινὰ τοῦ θύειν τε καὶ εὔ- 
3 ΄ὔ 

χεσθαι. The term ἐπιστήμη adds 

nothing new; for ὁσιότης has 

/ 

already been regarded as τέχνη 
> ΄ 

= ἐπιστήμη; CD. τεχνικόν, 14 E. 

14. αἰτήσεως : Sc. παρὰ θεῶν. 


5 te , ’ wa ε ε / 
ἀλλά μοι λέξον, Tis αὕτη ἡ ὑπηρεσία 
> \ A a > A \ 5 ἈΝ Ν , 

20 ἐστὶ τοῖς θεοῖς ; αἰτεῖν τε φὴς αὐτοὺς Kat διδόναι 


15. ὁσιότης : without the art., 
HA. 660; G. 944. Cp. τὴν ὁσιό- 
tyta, 14 C, above, 1- 5, and 7 
σιύτης, 14 E, 1. 10. 17. 
Oupntns . . . τῆς σῆς σοφίας: 
contrast with this colorless phrase 
the vivid expression in Jeno 70 B 


> 
ἐπι- 


ἐραστὰς ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ. Cp. δε. 
600 D. See App. 18. @ore... 


πεσεῖται: the metaphor is de- 
rived from arrows that miss the 
mark and fall in vain to the 
ground; cp. Pind. Οἱ. 9. 13 and 
schol. 19. ὑπηρεσία: Socrates 
is glancing at 13 D, and thereby 
clearly shows that he does not 
regard Euthyphro’s latest at- 
tempt as a definition of holiness 
proper, but only as a special de- 
scription of man’s ministrations 
to Deity. 20. αὐτοὺς. . . ἐκεί- 
vos: see note on 6 E. 


D 


14D 


88 ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ [14 D 


XVIII. 
a ΄ 5. 5 ΄ὕἹ a > \ Sy 
ὧν δεόμεθα παρ᾽ ἐκείνων, ταῦτα αὐτοὺς αἰτεῖν ; 

ΕΥΘ. ᾿Αλλὰ τί; 

ΣΩ. Καὶ αὖ τὸ διδόναι ὀρθῶς, ὧν ἐκεῖνοι | τυγχά- E 


> > la ΕΝ 3» 
ΣΩ. ἾΑρ᾽ οὖν οὐ τὸ ὀρθῶς αἰτεῖν ἂν εἴη, 


5 νουσιν δεόμενοι TAP ἡμῶν, ταῦτα ἐκείνοις αὖ ἀντιδω- 
ρεῖσθαι; οὐ γάρ που τεχνικόν γ᾽ ἂν εἴη δωροφορεῖν 
διδόντα τῳ ταῦτα ὧν οὐδὲν δεῖται. 

EYO. ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες. 
30. ᾿Εμπορικὴ apa τις ἂν εἴη, ὦ Ἰυὐθύφρον, τέχνη 
Ε ε Id 0 -~ ἊΝ 5 θ ’ > 5 je 
10 ἢ ὁσιότης θεοῖς καὶ ἀνθρώποις Tap ἀλλήλω». 
ΕΥ̓Θ. ᾿Εμπορική, εἰ οὕτως ἥδιόν σοι ὀνομάζειν. 
ΣΩ. "ANN οὐδὲν ἥδιον ἔμοιγε, εἰ μὴ τυγχάνει 
ἀληθὲς ὄν. φράσον δέ μοι, τίς ἡ ὠφελία τοῖς θεοῖς 
τυγχάνει οὖσα ἀπὸ τῶν δώρων ὧν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν λαμβά- 
ἃ \ \ 5 5 ΄ \ SH FOG Ν 
ις vouow ; ἃ μὲν γὰρ διδόασι, παντὶ δῆλον οὐδὲν γὰρ 
14D 


XVIII. 2. ταῦτα αὐτοὺς ai- to enlightened minds, was com- 14 


τεῖν: HA. 724; G. 1069; B. 340. 
3. ἀλλὰ ti: ‘whatelse?’ Ritter 
(Untersuchungen iiber Plato, p. 
57) says that in his later works 
Plato uses τί μήν; instead of 
thispphiase.. 4-700...) αὖ: 
note the repetition. See note on 
6A. 6. τεχνικόν : ‘in accord- 
ance with ἐπιστήμη (= τέχνη)." 
11. ἐμπορική : τις Somewhat soft- 
ens the repulsive expression, but 
there is in the term a certain 
protest against popular notions. 
Cp. Symp. 188 B ἔτι τοίνυν καὶ 
θυσίαι πᾶσαι καὶ οἷς μαντικὴ ἐπι- 
στατεῖ --- ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ περὶ 
θεούς τε καὶ ἀνθρώπους πρὸς 
ἀλλήλους κοινωνία ; «ὁ γηιῤ. 202 E, 
Rep. 365 E, Pol. 290 CD, Aes. 
Choeph.255 ff. This conception 
of religion, however repugnant 


mon among primitive peoples 
and still serves to explain certain 
ceremonies. See Deussen, 4//ge- 
meine Cesch. der Philosophie, τ. 


I. ot ff. 12. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἥδιον 
κτλ. : Socrates resents conces- 


sions made to his pleasure rather 
than to the truth ; for truth is not 
a respecter of persons.) ἴδῃ 
hep. 595 CC, Phacdo or Ae 
Arist. Eth. Wic. 1. 4. 1096* 16. 
15. οὐδὲν γὰρ. . . ἐκεῖνοι δῶσιν: 
the views of Socrates on Provi- 
dence are given by Xen. JZem. 
I. 4 and 4. 3. A Christian 
scholiast refers to James 1. 17, 
“Every good gift and every 
perfect gift is from above, and 
cometh down from the Father 
of lights.” Cp. the utterance of 
Democritus, /7. 13 (Mullach). 





20 


25 


1: ὰ 


15 B] EY@OY®PON 89 


ἘΠῚ ΑΝ 5 3 θό τὸ * Sv bo) a a \ 
ἡμῖν ἐστιν ἀγαθόν, | ore ἂν μὴ ἐκεῖνοι δῶσιν ἃ δὲ 
ine; A Ue Lae) an x A 
Tap ἡμῶν λαμβάνουσιν, τί ὠφελοῦνται ; ἢ τοσοῦτον 

5 ἴω “ XN Ν ty 
αὐτῶν πλεονεκτοῦμεν KATA τὴν ἐμπορίαν, ὥστε πάντα 
Ἃς 5 Ν > 5 “A , » “ Ν > 
τὰ ἀγαθὰ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν λαμβάνομεν, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ παρ 


ε a 5 ’, 
ἡμῶν οὐδέν ; 


> ΕἾ > Ἂ 
EY@. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ove, ὦ Σώκρατες, τοὺς θεοὺς ὠφελεῖ 
σθαι ἀπὸ τούτων, ἃ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν λαμβάνουσιν ; 


XN 3 3, an > 
30. ᾿Αλλὰ τί δήποτ᾽ ἂν εἴη ταῦτα, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, τὰ 


Tap ἡμῶν δῶρα τοῖς θεοῖς ; 


ΕΥΘ. Τί δ᾽ οἴει ἄλλο ἢ τιμή τε καὶ γέρα καί, ὅπερ 


ἐγὼ ἄρτι ἔλεγον, χάρις ; ; 


30. Κεχαρίσμένον ἄρα | ἐστίν, ὦ EvOdppor, TO 
ὅσιον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ ὠφέλιμον οὐδὲ φίλον Tots θεοῖς ; 


ΕΥΘ. Οἶμαι ἔγωγε πάντων γε μάλιστα φίλον. 


16. ἃ δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν κτλ. : the 


unexpressed antecedent of a is 


aimee acc. (OF nom.? cp. Az/. 
27 E), cp. Phaedo 65 D τί δὲ 
δὴ τὰ τοιάδε. Note the fuller 
form in 1. 21 ὠφελεῖσθαι ἀπὸ τού- 
Tov ἃ παρ ἡμῶν λαμβάνουσιν. 
For τί, see HA. γσγι6 b; G. 1054. 
21. ὠφελεῖσθαι ἀπὸ τούτων : 
‘they derive benefit from.’ 
ὠφελεῖσθαι c. ἐκ and ἀπό with 
reference to things, c. ὑπό and 
mapa (rare) with reference to 
persons. Cp. ἀπό with λαμβάνω 
(Apol. 25 E), ἀπολαύω (Afpol. 
31 B), ne ee 83 B). 
23. τί δήποτ᾽ : the δῶρα τοῖς θεοῖς 
are regarded as constituting es- 
sentially a unit, hence τί rather 
than τίνα ; cp. GS. 132. Socrates 
requires not an enumeration but 
a statement of the character of 
our gifts to the gods. 25. τιμή 
τε καὶ γέρα : note the free nom, in 


enumeration, GS. 8. Or possibly 
οἴει may be parenthetical. Sacri- 


fices were actually called τιμαί 


(cp. Lat. honores), γέρα, and 
χάριτες. 26. ἄρτι: 2.6. in 14 B. 
27. κεχαρισμένον φίλον : 


Euthyphro’s use of κεχαρισμένα, 
14 B, and χάρις, 15 A, has occu- 
pied Socrates’ thought all the 
while, though he has temporarily 
disregarded the point. Now by 
an adroit turn he makes Euthy- 
phro identify these terms with 
φίλον and so shows him that the 
argument has traveled round in 
a circle to the point of departure, 
in6E. 29. πάντων ye μάλιστα 
φίλον: this may be merely ἃ 
strengthened superlative, ‘noth- 
ing quite so dear,’ as in Charm. 
158 E; but it seems better to take 
ijt as an emphatic assertion that it 
is φίλον at all events, whether it 
be ὠφέλιμον or not. Cp. Gorg. 


B 


go TMAATONOS 


qn ΟΝ ΟῚ 5 Ν > ε » Ν ν Ν nw 
30 2Q. Tovro ap ἐστιν αὖ, ὡς EOLKE, TO ODLOV, TO τοῖς 


θεοῖς φίλον. 
EY®. Μάλιστα γε. 


XIX. ΣΩ. Θαυμάσει οὖν ταῦτα λέγων, ἐάν σοι 

΄ Ν 

οἱ λόγοι φαίνωνται μὴ μένοντες ἀλλὰ βαδίζοντες, καὶ 

5 Ν 5 ’ ἊΝ is ΄ 5 Ἂν a 

ἐμὲ αἰτιάσει τὸν Δαίδαλον βαδίζοντας αὐτοὺς ποιεῖν, 

SiN “Ὁ ΄, , la) ὃ Ἄ ms 

αὐτὸς ὧν πολύ γε τεχνικώτερος τοῦ Δαιδάλου καὶ 

ς κύκλῳ περιιόντα ποιῶν ; ἢ οὐκ αἰσθάνει, ὅτι ὁ λόγος 
ἡμῖν περιελθὼν πάλιν εἰς ταὐτὸν | ἥκει; μέμνησαι C 

᾿ - “ / ω Ν 
γάρ που, ὅτι ἐν τῷ ἔμπροσθεν τό τε ὅσιον καὶ τὸ 
θεοφιλὲς οὐ ταὐτὸν ἡμῖν ἐφάνη, ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερα ἀλλήλων * 


ἢ οὐ μέμνησαι ; 


[15 Β 





4 
10 EY. "Eywye. ᾿ 
ΣΩ. Nov οὖν οὐκ ἐννοεῖς, ὅτι τὸ τοῖς θεοῖς φίλον 
φὴς ὅσιον εἶναι ; τοῦτο δ᾽ ἄλλο τι ἢ θεοφιλὲς γίγνε- ι 
ται; 1 OU; 
EY@. ἸΠάνυ γε. 
15 ΣΏ. Οὐκοῦν ἢ ἄρτι οὐ καλῶς ὡμολογοῦμεν, ἢ εἰ 
τότε καλῶς, νῦν οὐκ ὀρθῶς τιθέμεθα. i 


EY. Ἔοικεν. 


15B 453 Ὁ οὐ δῆτα. ἀλλὰ πάντων 
μάλιστα πείθει, ‘persuade, you 
ask? Why yes, — of αὐ things!” 
See note on εἰ ὅτι μάλιστα. 
4D. 

30. av: refers back to 6 E. — 
τὸ τοῖς θεοῖς φίλον : explanatory 
of τοῦτο, the pred. of τὸ ὅσιον. 
32. μάλιστα ye: ‘most certainly,’ 
frequent in answers. 

XIX. 3. tov Δαίδαλον: cp. 
ir 6 Ὁ for the art:, see HA.1663: 
This is, of course, in app. with ἐμέ. 
4. καὶ κύκλῳ... ποιῶν : καί eM- 

phasizes κύκλῳ, and ποιῶν assigns 


the ground for the previous state- 15 Bo 
ment. 5. 6 Adyos κτλι: for 

the thought, see Z7zeaet. 200 C, 
Hipparch. 231 C, Clitopho 410 A. 
7. ἐν τῷ ἔμπροσθεν: τὸ DE. C 
12. ἄλλο τι ἡ: HA. rors abe 
G. 1604; B. 573, Ν. -- γίγνεται: 
‘turns out to 6. 15. ἄρτι: in 
10 E. — καλῶς . ὀρθῶς: see 
note on 7 A. 

CLOSE OF THE DIALOGUE: 
‘Our quest has been futile; let 
us begin anew.’ ‘Excuse me; 

I have a pressing engagement. 
Some other day.’ 





10 


15 C 





-B. 627. — ἑκὼν eivai: 


15 Π] 


EY@Y®PON 


gt 


XX. 30. “EE ἀρχῆς dpa ἡμῖν πάλιν σκεπτέον, 


2 59 . ὦ ε > ΄ \ x 
τί ἐστι τὸ ὁσιον" ὡς ἐγώ, πρὶν ἂν 
οὐκ ἀποδειλιάσω. | ἀλλὰ μή με 
παντὶ τρόπῳ προσέχων τὸν νοῦν 


εἰπὲ THY’ ἀλήθειαν. 


οἶσθα γάρ, 


ὔ ε Ν κν 

μάθω. ἑκὼν εἶναι 
> / 5 ‘\ 
ἀτιμάσῃς, ἀλλὰ 
ν , lo 
OTL μάλιστα νῦν 
yy »» 

εἰπερ τις ἄλλος 


ΕῚ θ , Ἂς 5 5 Vd Ἂν ν «ε ͵ὔ 
αν βώπων, και ουκ ἀφετέος El, WOTTEP O IIpwrevs, 


N ΕΝ » 
πριν αν ΕὐΤ)“. 


εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἤδησθα σαφῶς τό τε 


Y \ NUSy of > » ν » > , 
OOLOV KAL TO AVOOLOV, οὐκ EOTLY OTWS AV ποτε ἐπέχει 
ἘΝ ταν > Ν » 
βησας ὕπερ ἀνδρὸς θητὸς ἄνδρα πρεσβύτην πατέρα 
΄ , Si Ν Ν \ \ “Ὁ » 
διωκάθειν φόνου, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς ἂν ἔδεισας 


γιὰ ss > A 
παρακινδυνεύειν, μὴ οὐκ ὀρθῶς αὐτὸ ποιήσοις, Kal 


Ἀ > 7, 5 ΄ 
TOUS ἀνθρώπους noxvv bys. 


ΚΟ 2 ὧς: ELA ὍΣ: (τ. 
1505; Β. ποῦ. --- πρὶν ἂν μάθω: 
TAY. 921, (024. a); G. 1471. 2; 
ΕΑ 95 Gia: 
705355 Bb. 642.1; GMT. 780. 
Sp. be L- Gildersleeve in A. ΠῚ ῸΞ 
1889, 381 f. “It may well be 
contended that in all these pas- 
sages εἶναι serves the purposes 
of a larger ye— which particle, 
by the way, is absent from nearly 
all the passages in which the re- 
strictive εἶναι occurs.” 
τρόπῳ... 


4. παντὶ 
. ὅτι μάλιστα : double 
intensive, because Euthyphro is 
remiss (τρυφᾷ). Cp. Gorg. 
496 C καὶ εὖ μάλα σκεψάμενος 
ἀποκρίνου. 5. εἴπερ τις ἄλλος: 
HA. 905; B. 615. 6. ὥσπερ 
ὁ IIpwreds: cp. Hom. ὃ 384 ff; 
Euthyd. 288 B, fon 541 E. All 
sea-divinities possessed two char- 
acteristics which render the com- 
parison of Euthyphro with them 
especially fitting: they had the 
gift of prophecy, and they had 


juxtaposition. — πατέρα : 


vov δὲ εὖ οἶδα OTL 


the power to change at will from 
one form to another. Cp. the 
representations on figured vases 
of Peleus’ wooing of Thetis. For 
Thetis, see Afol. 28 C, Hom. 
> 70 ff. ‘it is 
impossible that,’ phraseological ; 
virtually an adv. = xullo modo. 
9. ἀνδρὸς θητὸς ἄνδρα πρεσβύτην : 
HA. 625 a. Note the emphatic 
‘and 
Note the 
10. διωκάθειν: 


eee eo 
8. οὐκέστιν ὅπως: 


that your father.’ 
emphatic order. 
HA. 494; 6. 779. --- τοὺς θεούς : 
obj. of ἂν ἔδεισας. and παρακινδυ- 
νεύειν is an epexegetic inf. like- 
wise depending on it. 11. μὴ 
οὐκ ποιήσοις : one of the 
very rare cases of the fut. opt. 
after verbs of fearing, GMT. 
Wein 12. ἠσχύνθης : supply 
ἄν from the foregoing verbs. 
The omission is more common 
with the opt., GS. 450. Cp. 
Phaedo 87 E, Anterast. 135 ( 
136 C. 


D 


15D 


15 


20 


15D 


92 


TAATONOS ΕΥ̓ΘΥΦΡΩΝ 


15 D-16A 


at ΕΣ 90 7 , ν \ , SN ἫΝ ἊΣ 
σαφῶς | OLEL εἰδέναι TO TE OOLOV και μὴ * €lL7TE OVV, ὦ 


, é 5 ΄ Ν Ν 5 ΄ 4 Sia Cee 
βέλτιστε Εὐθύφρον, καὶ μὴ ἀποκρύψῃ ὅτι αὐτὸ ἡγεῖ. 
ΕΥΘ. Εἰς αὖθις τοίνυν, ὦ Σώκρατες" νῦν γὰρ σπεύδω 


iP ν ’ 
TOL, καΐ μοι WPA ἀπιέναι. 


ΣΩ. Οἷα ποιεῖς, ὦ ἑταῖρε! ἀπ᾽ ἐλπίδος με καταβαλὼν 


μεγάλης ἀπέρχει. ἣν εἶχον. ὡς παρὰ σοῦ μαθὼν τά τε 
ν Ν Ἂν Ν “a ἂν , Ὁ.) 5 , 
ὅσια καὶ μὴ Kal τῆς πρὸς Μέλητον γραφῆς ἀπαλλά- 
5 ’, 5 / ν Ν 4 > 
Eopar, ἐνδειξάμενος ἐκείνῳ ὅτι σοφὸς ἤδη παρ᾽! 


Εὐθύφρονος τὰ θεῖα γέγονα καὶ ὅτι οὐκέτι ὑπ᾽ ἀγνοίας 
ρ Vey γ 


3 ΄ 2Q\ las \ τς ὍΣ \ \ \ 
αὐτοσχεδιάζω οὐδὲ καινοτόμω περι QuTa, και δὴ και 


τὸν ἄλλον βίον ὅτι ἄμεινον βιωσοίμην. 


13. σαφῶς οἴει εἰδέναι : cp. 
ἀκριβῶς ole ἐπίστασθαι. σαφῶς 
limits εἰδέναι, and οἴει is used to 
suggest that it is a mere (un- 
founded) opinion. Cp. Afol. 
20, Ἂ- 15. εἰς αὖθις: ‘some 
other day.’ Cp. 6 ( ταῦτα pv 
μοι εἰς αὖθις ἐπὶ σχολῆς διηγήσει. 
16. ὥρα ἀπιέναι: HA. 952; G. 
1520; B. 641; for the: oniis- 
sion of the copula, see HA. 
ὅτι; GS-33 it.  Laert: Dior. 
2. 29 says that Socrates induced 
a certain Euthyphro to desist 
from prosecuting his father. 
Though there is a mistake in 
the nature of the charge, acc. to 
his account, there can be no doubt 
that our Euthyphro is meant. 
Hirzel, Der Dialog, 1. p. 196, 
n. I, suggests that the variant 
ξενίας in Laert. Diog. 2. 29 for 
(Eevoxtovias or) φόνου, acc. to 
Euth. 4 A, was due to some other 
Socratic dialogue, rather than to 
a comedy, as Bergk supposed, De 
Religuits Conioediae Atticae An- 


tiguae, p. 357 tt. 17. ota “ποιεῖς : 


HA. too1a. The words express 
disappointment. Cp. Charm. 
166 C, Alc. 7.13) nae 
117 D.— ἀπ᾽ ἐλπίδος κτλ. : cp. 
Phaedo 98 B. Socrates has 
based two hopes on the expecta- 
tion of being duly instructed by 
Euthyphro: first, the hope of 
exemption from trial (ws... 
ἀπαλλάξομαι, GMT. 136; cp. 
Eur. £7. 919); again, the hope 
of leading a better life with truer 
insight (ὅτι ἄμεινον βιωσοίμην, 
GMT. 1283) cp.. Thue ΟΣ ΘΟ" 
Socrates, no doubt, was genu- 
inely disappointed; but it, is 
customary, in Plato’s minor dia- 
logues, to leave the main question 
unanswered. 19. kav... καὶ δὴ 
kai: ‘both...and especially.’— 
ἀπαλλάξομαι.... βιωσοίμην : note 
the change from dir. to indir. 4156. 
For the constr., see note on ἀπ᾽ 
€Aridos, 1.17. The doubling of 
conjunctions is not unexampled ; 
cp. Xen. Cyr. 5. 3.:30\) Alaeeee 
6. 193 7: 4. 5. Inversely, tome 
. ὡς; Πρ. Ma. 281 (δ. 


16 ἢ 


15 ΕΣ 


16A 





APPENDIX 


Ser. so UBLIOGRAPHY 





















a. General Works on Plato Dealing with the Euthyphro 


SCHLEIERMACHER, F.: Platons Werke, Berlin, 1804. 1. 2. pp. 37-39. 

Ast, F.: Platons Leben und Schriften, Leipzig, 1816. pp. 469-474. 

SocHEr, J.: Ueber Platons Schriften, Miinchen, 1820. pp. 60-64. 

ARNOLD, A.: Platons Werke, einzeln erklart und in threm Zusammenhange 
dargestelit, Berlin, 1835. 1 Hett, pp. 45-67. 

HERMANN, K. F.: Geschichte und System der Platonischen Philosophie, 
Heidelberg, 1839. pp. 480 f., 640 f. 

STEINHART, K. und H. MULLER: Platons samtliche Werke, Leipzig, 1851. 
I. pp. 187-200. 

SUSEMIHL, F.: Deze genetische Entwickelung der Platonischen Philosophie, 

j HEeipzic, 1S55. 1. pp. 114-127. 

_ Monk, E.: Dee natiirliche Ordnung der Platonischen Schriften, Berlin, 1857. 

__ Pp. 441-457. 

UEBERWEG, F.: Untersuchungen tiber die Echthett und Zeitfolge Platonischer 

Schriften, Wien, 1861. pp. 250 ff. 

Grote, G.: Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates, London, 1865. 

I. pp. 310-330. 

CHAARSCHMIDT, C.: Die Sammlung der Platonischen Schriften, Bonn, 

| 1866. pp. 390-396. 

Bonitz, H.: Platonische Studien, Dritte Aufl., Berlin, 1886. pp. 227-242. 

IEDEMANN, D.: Dialogorum Platonis Argumenta Exposita et Ilustrata, 

Biponti, 1786. pp. 13-15. 

VAN PRINSTERER, W.G.: Platonica Prosopographia, Lugdun. Batav., 1823. 

a) pp. 170 ff. 

Hunziker, J.: Argumenta Dialogorum (in Platonis Opera, ed. Didot) 

_ Parisiis, 1873. 3. pp. 20-22. 

LUTOSLAWSKI, W.: Zhe Origin and Growth of Plato's Logic, New York, 

1897. 


f 


b. General Editions of Plato’s Works 


Lditio Princeps, apud Aldum, Venice, 1513. 
STEPHANUS, H.: Paris, 1578. All recent Plato texts are printed with page 
93); 


94 APPENDIX 


and letter (A, B, C, D, E) of this edition added in the marge and all” 
citations are made in accordance with them. 

Ast, F.: Platonis guae Extant Opera, Lipsiae, 1819-1832. 

STALLBAUM, G.: Platonis Opera Ommia, Lipsiae, 1821-1825. 

BEKKER, I.: Platonts Scvifia GraecesOmmnia, Londini, 1826. 

HERMANN, C. F.: Platonis Dialogi secundum Thrasylli Tetralogias Dispositt, 
Lipsiae, 1851-1853. 

HirscuiG, Κα. B.: Platonis Opera, Graece et Latine (Didot), Parisiis, 1846- 
1856. 

ScHANZ, M.: Platonis Opera quae Feruntur Omnia, Lipsiae, 1875 ff. (Criti- 
cal edition, not yet completed.) 

HERMANN-WOHLRAB: /Vatonis Opera post C. F. Hermannum Recognovit 
M. Wohlrab, Lipsiae, 1881 ff. 

BurneET, J.: Platonis Opera, Oxonii, 1900. (Not yet completed.) 


c. Special Editions containing the Euthyphro 


FIscHER, I. F.: Platonis Euthyphro Apologia Socratis Crito Phaedo, Ed. 
{|| Lipsiae, 1783. 

Wo tr, F. A.: Platenis Dialogorum Delectus. Pars 7. Euthyphro Apolo- 
gia Socratis Crito, Berolini, 1812. 

ENGELHARDT, F. G.: Platonis Dialogi Quattuor Laches Euthyphro Apologia 
Socratis Menexenus, Berolini, 1 1825. Ε 

WOHLRAB, Μ.: Platons Euthyphro fiir den Schulgebrauch erklart, Leipzig, 
1872. Dritte, verbesserte Auflage, 1887. 

WELLS, G. H.: The Euthyphro of Plato. With an [ntroduction and Notes, 
London, 1880. 

SCHMELZER, C.: Platos ausgewahlte Dialoge. Menon, Euthyphron. Berlin, 
1883. 

GRAVES, C. E.: Zhe Euthyphro and the,Menexenus of Plato. Edited for 
the Use of Schools, London, 1883. 

FRITZSCHE, A. R.: Platonts Meno et Euthyphro, Incerti tS OBIE Theages 
Erastae Hipparchus, Lipsiae, 1885. 

SCHANZ, M.: Platonis Euthyphro. In scholarum usum denuo edidit M.S., 
Lipsiae, 1887. 

SCHANZ, M.: Sammlung ausgewihlter Dialoge Platos mit deutschem Kom- 
mentar. Erstes een Euthyphro, Leipzig, 1887. 

Curist, A. ΤΗ.: Platons Euthyphron. Fiir den Schulgebrauch herausgege- 
ben, Wien und Prag, 1890. 

ADAM, J.: Platonis Euthyphro. Wath Introduction and Notes, Cambridge, 
1890. 





APPENDIX 95 





d. Special Works dealing with the Euthyphro 


Erlangen, 1787. 
SCHIERENBERG, H.A.: Ueber die Σ᾿ der Abfassung des Platonischen Dia- 
; logs Kuthyphron, Lemgo, 1842. 
_ YXEM, E. F.: Ueber Platons Euthyphro, Berlin, 1842. 
~GRASER, F. W.: Ueber Platons Euthyphro, in Zeitschrift fiir Altertumswis- 
senschaft, 1842, pp. 563-572. 
_ STRUVE, E. A.: Quid Socrati Pium Videatur in Platonis Euthyphrone, 
Gorlitz, 1855. 
‘Marescu, A.: Linlettung zu Platons Euthyphron, Pressburg, 1859. 
MunscuHe_er, F. W.: /rhalt und 2) EE ung des Platonischen Dialogs Euthy- 
phron, Hersfeld, 1859. 
HERMANN, E.: Lzvlectung, Gedankengang und Gliederung des Platonischen 
Dialogs ΕΣ ΠΕ τς 1861. 
WALSER, J.: Platons Euthyphron oder die Erorterung iiber die Frimmigkeit, 
Hammerstadt, 1866. 
COLLMANN, E.: Ueber den Platonischen Dialog Euthyphron, Marburg, 1870. 
SCHULTZE, R.: Ueber Platons Euthyphron, Wittstock, 1870. 
MICHAEL, A.: De Pietatis Notione, quam Plato in Euthyphrone Tractat, 
Zittau, 1871. 
WECLEwWSKI, S.: De Platonis Euthyphrone, Conitz, 1875. 
LECHTHALER, J.: Die ὁσιότης (Frémnugheit) bet Platon, mit Riicksicht auf 
| Schaarschmidts Athetese des Dialogs Euthyphron, Meran, 1879. 
RigEseER, O.: De Platonis Euthyphrone, Frauenfeld, 1880. 
WAGNER, J.: Zur Athetese des Dialogs Euthyphron, Brinn, 1883. 
WaGNeR, J.: Praparationen zu Platons Euthyphron, Brinn, 1888. 
SuMAN, J.: Beitrag zur Erklirung des Platonischen Dialogs Euthyphron, 
᾿ς in Zeitschrift fiir die oesterreich. Gymnasien, 1894, pp. 687 ff. 
HEIDeL, W. A.: Ox Plato's Euthyphro, in Transactions of the American 
- Philological Association, xxxi, 1900, pp. 163-181. 


“» I. C. Β.: De Consilio Platonis in Scribendo Euthyphrone, 






























‘ 


So CRIMCAL NOEES-ON- THE TEXT 


A detailed report of the readings of the Mss. has been given with great 
precision by Schanz and Fritzsche, to whose adwotatio the scholar is referred. 
A careful study of the text of Burnet (Oxford, 1900) and of Schanz’s smaller 
critical edition (Leipzig, 1887) as compared with the large edition (Leipzig, 
1875), shows how ὙΠ critics now are to follow slavishly any one class 


of Mss. 


96 APPENDIX 
































It is well known that the works of Plato were divided for convenience 
into two volumes, the first of which contained the first seven tetralogies, the 
second containing the remainder. The best Ms. for the first volume, as is 
universally acknowledged, is the Clarkzanus of the Bodleian Library, Oxford. 
For the second volume, the /av7szzus is admittedly the best. Burnet sug- 
gests the possibility that the 7arczanus (T) — which shares, though not quite 
equally, with the Clarkzanus (B) the distinction of affording the critical 
basis for the first volume — is really the lost first part of the Parzstnus. It 
may therefore be in order to give a brief account of these two Mss. 

The Clarkianus' or Lodlecanus (B), a parchment written in the year 
895 (so Burnet; Schanz says 896), contains the first six tetralogies of 
Thrasyllus. It is admitted by all to be the best representative of the first 
class of Mss., to which Schanz in his large critical edition deferred in all 
cases of doubt. The Ms. suffers chiefly from two classes of errors: first, 
from mistakes of the copyist, which, not being masked by false learning, are 
readily detected and corrected; second, from omissions, which may be 
recovered by reference to T. In matters of detail, B is fairly accurate, but 
requires to be corrected here and there, when the right reading appears 
only in inferior Mss. 

The Jarczanus? (T), the leader of the second class of Mss., is a parch- 
ment, written in the twelfth century or earlier, discovered and collated by 
Schanz, who at once perceived its great worth. The scribe who wrote it 
was more than ordinarily intelligent, and made few mistakes of an egregious 
sort. There occur, however, numerous transpositions, which are easily cor- 
rected by reference to Bs In the vast majority of points the text of the 
Euthyphro is now fully made out, and the disagreements between B and T 
have been finally weighed; but there still remain a number of passages in 
which the indications are by no means clear. In such cases the editor 
follows B or T according to his best judgment of the requirements of the 
context. 

In offering the following critical notes, the object has been twofold. In 
the first place, it aooeened desirable to single out the principal points ate 
which the text may still be fairly said to be in doubt, and to exhibit the ἢ 
readings of Band T. But, again, it was only natural that account should be 
taken τ the text presented in the best recent editions.. In so doing, i 
became necessary to take sides, and sometimes to take issue with scholars 
whose critical judgment is deservedly held in high esteem. The text here 
presented exhibits only one novelty, viz. the reading ἄλλους ἀδικεῖν for ἀλλή, 
λους ἀδικεῖν in 8 D, and this was suggested as a possibility, though no 
adopted, by Adam. Where no note is given, the text of Wohlrab’s recelgy 


1 See Schanz, Vovae Commentationes Platonicae, Wirceburgi, 1871, pp. 105-118. 
2 See Schanz, Ueber den Platocodex der Markusbibliothek in Venedig, Append. 
Class. 4, Nr.z. Leipzig, 1877. 


APPENDIX 97 


sion of Hermann’s Teubner edition (Leipzig, 1881) is followed. The 
following abbreviations, not previously explained, have been employed.! 


= Schanz’s larger critical edition, of 1875. 
S?. = Schanz’s smaller critical edition, of 1887. 
fic. ΞΞ- Fritzsche. 

Wb. = Hermann-Wobhlrab. 
A. = Adam. 
Bur. = Burnet. 


2 A. ὦ Εὐθύφρον : B and T always show ὦ Εὐθύφρων ; Edd., excepting Bur., 
read ὦ Εἰὐθύφρον with the vulgate. B and T frequently err in such matters. 
Fritzsche ad /oc. cites numerous instances of similar character from the Mss. 

γραφὴν σέ τις Fr., A., Bur. ; γραφήν σέ τις Wb., 5. σέ is clearly emphatic. 

2B. γέγραπται A., Bur., rightly; γέγραπται ; Wb., S., F. 

ὡς σὺ ἕτερον B; ὡς σύ ye ἕτερον T, wrongly; for ov receives all the neces- 
sary stress from its juxtaposition with ἕτερον. 

πρὸς τὴν πόλιν - Cobet, following Schaefer ad Dion. Hal. De Comp. Verb., 
p- 328, omits zpos, since he deletes the prepos. wherever the comparison pre- 

 cedes the thing compared. See Var. Lect., p. 165. 
3 A. τῶν νέων : S2, following Gomperz, brackets the words unnecessarily, 
-as I think. See the Notes. 

3 B. pe ποιητὴν εἶναι B; ποιητὴν εἶναί pe T. 

διαβαλῶν E, Edd.; διαβαλών BT. 

3 Ὁ. ἐθέλοι B; Ber without good reason reads ἐθέλει with T. ἐθέλοι is 

~ the normal protasis to ἘΠ ἢ} ἂν ἡδέως ; for Socrates exaggerates in order 
to point the contrast between himself and Euthyphro. 
νῦν δὴ Wb., Fr., S., A.; νυνδὴ S?., Bur., following Cobet, throughout. 
3 Ε΄. σπουδάσονται T ; eaousdtovras B, by a false assimilation to παίζον- 
Tas Kal γελῶντας. 
4 A. ὅπῃ ποτὲ ὀρθῶς ἔχει Mss. Madvig, Adversaria Crit.,1., p. 366, indi- 
‘cates a lacuna after these words, suggesting that an infinitive (εὐσεβεῖν Ὁ) has 
been lost and ὀρθῶς has crept into its place. Schanz looks to 9 A or 15 D 
_ for the necessary supplement. See Notes. Wb. is content to say that the 
“subj. of ὀρθῶς ἔχει (such as τὸ τῷ πατρὶ φόνον ἐγκαλεῖν) is only vaguely in 

Socrates’ thought; and hence he marks no definite lacuna. Similz urly Fr. 

The former view is, on the whole, the more probable. A. brackets ὀρθῶς, 
and reads ἔχεις, gaining a phoughe hardly in keeping with the context. 
UA; T. Christ inserts ταῦτα πρᾶξαι Ae ἔχει, and deletes αὐτὸ πρᾶξαι in the 
“next clause. Bur. brackets ὀρθῶς before αὐτὸ, and follows the Mss. for the 


iasest. 
fi 4B 


- 







ἢ δῆλα δή; 52, A., Bur., rightly; ἢ δῆλα δή Wb., S., Fr 


1 For full titles, see the Bibliography, App. § I. c. 
EUTHYPHRO — 7 


98 APPENDIX 


mov ὑπέρ ye ἀλλοτρίου T, followed by S”., A., Bur., rightly, I think, because 
the ye naturally places the stress on ἀλλοτρίου (W. has ἀλλοτρίου ye) ; πού 
γε ὑπὲρ ἀ. B, followed by Wb: Ὁ. Bir: 

ὁ κτείνας MSS. ; χὠ κτείνας 55. without good reasons. 

4C. χρείη B Ga hand), rightly, τετοῦτος by S., followed by Edd. ; χρὴ T. 

4 E. μου Heusde, followed by Edd.; μοι BT. The former reading only 
is allowable. 

5 Β. καὶ ὀρθῶς νομίζειν ἐμὲ B, followed by S., Fr., Wb.; καὶ ὀρθῶς... 
καὶ ἐμὲ T, followed by A. Bur. brackets the first καί and reads καὶ ἐμὲ. 

διδάσκοντι... νουθετοῦντι.... κολάζοντι restored by Madvig from inferior 
Mss.; διδάσκοντα. . . νουθετοῦντα. . . κολαΐζοντα BT. Ἵ 

εἰ ἄρα με B, followed by S., Fr., Wb., A.; ἐμὲ T, followed by Bur. ΑΘ 
the emphasis naturally falls on εἰ, pe is to be preferred. 

5 C. ἐγένετο B, followed by S., Fr., Wb., A., Bur.; yévorro T. See the 
Notes. 

ὀξέως B; ὀξέως ἀτεχνῶς T. ἀτεχνῶς is evidently out of place, and is 
probably a marginal remark, calling attention to the somewhat forced point — 
in κατεῖδεν, transferred erroneously into the text. So, too, 55. Bur. con- — 
jectures ἀτενῶς, which does not give an acceptable sense. ᾿ 

ς D. πᾶν τοὐναντίον 5". ; παντὸς ἐναντίον Mss. As S. remarks, since τὸ 
ὅσιον precedes without a modifier, one should expect no modifier with τοῦ. 
ὁσίου in view of the strong contrast; whereas a strengthening of ἐναντίον is 
quite in place. Cp. Protag. 332 A. 

κατὰ τὴν ἀνοσιότητα T’, followed by Wb, Fr., S?.; κατὰ τὴν ὁσιότητα B, 
followed by Α. 5. follows B, but brackets the words. κατὰ τὴν (ph) ὁσιό- 
tyra Bur., following the Armenian Version. It seems to me that the lection" 
of T is clearly correct. The only objection to it arises from the mistaken 
assumption that the words contain a reference to hypostatic Ideas, among 
which one of absolute negation would seem to be out of place. The assump- — 
tion should not, however, be made since the matter was thoroughly discussed 
by Bonitz (Platonische Studien, 3° Aufl., » Pp. 240 ff.). The definitional notion 
only was referred to by Plato, and if it is possible to define τὸ ἀνόσιον, as 
Plato everywhere implies, one may certainly say κατὰ τὴν ἀνοσιότητα. It is 
evident that the doubts of modern critics, such as Schaarschmidt and Wagner, 
had occurred to the ancients. This appears from the variants of T and B, 
and, still more, of the Armenian Version. Most instructive of all is the 
forced interpretation of the scholiast: κατὰ τὴν ὁσιότητα - ἀντὶ τοῦ ὁμοίως, 
παραπλησίως τῇ ὁσιότητι. As all this confusion arose from the mistaken 
notion that Plato referred to hypostatic Ideas, Adam should not have adopted 
the reading and the interpretation of the scholiast. 

5 E. τοῦ νομίμου Baumann, followed by 55. ; τοῦ νόμου Mss. νόμος cannot 
here mean the law of Athens, as Adam suggests. It must mean that which 
is universally accepted; but it is questionable whether the word will bear 
such an interpretation. Schanz conjectured τοὐννόμου, and Hirschig τοῦ 


ΝΕ 2 απο": 





APPENDIX 99 


ὁσίους Baumann’s τοῦ νομίμου gives the required sense, and seems to be 
the most likely reading. 
ὅτι... οὕτω γιγνόμενα bracketed by 53. 
6 A. οὕνεκα 5.. followed by A.; οὗ οὕνεκα BT, followed by Bur., who 
brackets οὗ ; ov ἕνεκα S., Wb., Fr. 
διὸ δὴ T, followed by S*., A., Bur. ; δι ἃ δὴ B, followed by S., Wb., Fr. 
Probably, as Schanz suggests, δι ἃ arose from an erroneous assimilation to 
τὰ τοιαῦτα; whereas the reference is to the whole clause τὰ τοιαῦτα. -. 
ἀποδέχομαι. 
6 C. μὴ μόνον B, followed by Edd.; μὴ μόνα T. The sing. evidently was 
questioned, and so gave rise to the plur. 
6D. καὶ γὰρ ἔστιν T, followed by S., Wb., Fr., Bur.; kal γάρ ἐστιν ὅσια B, 
followed by A. Since ὅσια is wanting in B after εἶναι in the previous line, 
it is probable that there is here, as Burnet suggests, a mere transposition. 
7 A. ἀληθές inferior Mss., followed by Wb. ; ἀληθῶς B, followed by S., Fr., 
A., Bur. ; ὡς ἀληθῶς T. Fora discussion, see Wohlrab’s Crit. App. and Jordan 
in Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. 1876, p. 781. Supposing the lection ἀληθές, which is 
clearly the most appropriate, ἀληθῶς may be accounted for in several ways. 
First, by simple assimilation to παγκάλως ; then, if Gs were written above 
-és, ὡς ἀληθῶς (T) would naturally arise. Again, it is conceivable that ὡς 
ἀληθῶς was added in the margin to draw attention to the emphasis on ἀλη- 
Os. In that case, ὡς ἀληθῶς (T) may easily have supplanted ἀληθές, because 
it was supposed to be a var. lect., and, being incapable of interpretation, 
ἀληθῶς (B) would be the resultant reading. 
ὁ θεοφιλὴς BT, followed by S., Fr., Wb., A.; θεοφιλὴς Bur., following W. 
οὐχ οὕτως (εἴρηται) ; Hermann, followed by A.; οὐχ οὕτως Mss. 
οὕτω μὲν οὖν MSS.; οὕτω μὲν οὖν. εἴρηται yap. Anton Maresch, followed 
by Wb., Fr., transposing εἴρηται yap, which, in the Mss., stands after δοκῶ, 
ὦ Σώκρατες. 
7 B. ϑοκῶ, ὦ Σώκρατες. [εἴρηται γάρ. Naberintroduced the brackets. The 
entire passage is desperate. See Fritzsche and Schanz (with the Addenda). 
ode Fr., S2,.A., B.; oSe S., Wb. 
7 C. μετρεῖν T, followed by Wb., Fr., S?., A., Bur.; μέτριον B; μέτρον 
inferior Mss., followed by S. 
ἐπὶ τίνα κρίσιν Edd., excepting S2, who reads ἐπί τινα κρίσιν. The 
change is not necessary. 
7 D. τί δὲ οἱ θεοί, ὦ Εἰὐθύφρον ; so I punctuate with Bur.; others punctuate 
“τί δέ: οἱ θεοί, κτλ. Cp. the passage, 14 A. 
le διὰ ταῦτα B, followed by S., S*., Wb., Fr., A.; δι αὐτὰ ταῦτα T, followed 
| by Bur. The emphasis is not needed. 
me SA. ὃ τυγχάνει BT, followed by Edd., except Schanz, who conjectures ᾧ. 
See the Notes. 
ξ 4 ES οὐ δεῖν φασὶ S., A., Bur., rightly, as φασί is emphatic; οὐ δεῖν φασι 
mew b., Fr. 







100 APPENDIX 


ὃ Ὁ. οὐκ ἄρα ἐκεῖνό γε. . . ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις Schanz brackets these words, 
following the suggestion of Schenkl, in Zeitschr. fiir Osterreich. Gymn., ΧΙ. 
p- 178; but the passage cannot be spared for the thought. 

ἄλλους ἀδικεῖν W. A. Heidel; ἀλλήλους ἀδικεῖν MSs.; GAN ἄλλους Adam. 
This is a difficult passage, of which no satisfactory explanation has been 
offered. Wohlrab interprets καὶ ἀλλήλους ἀδικοῦντες οἱ μέν φασιν ἀδικεῖν, οἵ 
δὲ οὔ φασιν, which, I suppose, must mean, ‘ Though they wrong one another, 
some say that they (themselves) are in the wrong, others say that they 
(themselves) are innocent.’ This is to me incredible. Fritzsche interprets 
ἀδικοῦσιν ἀλλήλους. καὶ ot μέν φασιν (ἀδικεῖσθαι). ot δὲ οὔ φασιν (ἀδικεῖν)- 
This is intelligible; but it is truly, as he says, " γζγαῶ brevitas!’ Besides, 
one is obliged to do violence to the text in order to reach this interpretation. 
Schanz merely says “ ἀλλήλους, Azer die einen die andern.” The sense 
would then be, ‘Some accuse each other; others say that they (themselves) 
are innocent.’ The disjunction is exceedingly lame, and cannot be accepted. 


Adam’s ἄλλ᾽ ἄλλους needlessly complicates the situation. The situation is _ 


simple: certain gods (not necessarily including αὐ gods) differ in their judg- 


one set of gods says, ‘they (ἄλλους, a third party) are in the wrong’; the 


μὴ 
ments touching others (whether gods or men does not distinctly appear) : F 
b ial 


other set says, ‘they are not.’ The frequent confusion of ἄλλων etc. with 
ἀλλήλων etc. in Mss. is sufficiently known. 
8 E. τὸ κεφάλαιον B; τό ye κεφάλαιον T, followed by Bur. 


g Ὁ. τὸ yap θεομισὲς ὃν καὶ θεοφιλὲς ἐφάνη bracketed by Kleist, followed by” 
Wb., 55. Adam brackets all from ἀλλὰ yap οὐ τούτῳ to ἐφάνη. The diffi- — 


τ arises, I believe, from a misapprehension. The bracketed words are 
required, because without them the second definition, in its first and una-_ 


mended form, is not disposed of. Socrates has had a sudden inspiration. — 
He sees that they are wasting time over unprofitable talk, and he desires to — 


introduce an objection to the al purport of the definition, to which he theres 
fore suggests an amendment. He is unwilling, however, to part with the 
last theme without clinching, in a word, his objection to the self-contradic- 


tory definition. This he does in a parenthesis, extending from θεομισὲς prey 
yap to ὦ Ev@vdpov, whereupon he resumes his first announcement of the 
new thought that has come to him in the emphatic and abrupt words, 


εἰ βούλει κτλ. See the Notes. 


ὥστε τούτου μὲν TY, followed by Wb., Bur., rightly, as I think, because 


Socrates wishes to suggest that he has a more fatal objection to urge; ὥστε, 
τούτου B, followed by S., Fr., A. 

εἰ βούλει B, followed by S., A., Bur.; καὶ et βούλει T, followed by Wb. = 
Er: 

9 D. ἡγείσθων B (second hand); otherwise the Mss. generally show | 
ἡγείσθωσαν, which Fr. adopts. The imv. ending -woay is not found on 
inscriptions before 300 B.c. See Meisterhans, Grammatik der Att. Inschrif= 


ten®, § 63 d. ᾿ 









APPENDIX IOI 


νῦν ἐπανορθώμεθα inferior Mss. ; viv ἐπανορθούμεθα Τ᾽ : ὃ viv ἐπανορθούμεθα 
B, followed by Bur. The reading of B, which makes the sentence anacolu- 
thic, may very well be the original text. 

Io C. ἤ τι πάσχει B, followed by Edd. ; ἢ εἴ τι πάσχει τι T. Cp. ἢ πάσχον 
τι ἴῃ 1. 33, beiow. 

ὑπὸ ὧν Mss. For the hiatus, see Cic. Orat. 44. 151 and Fritzsche ad 
Menon. 77 A. 

Io 1). {τὸ Geodidés) added by Bast, followed by Edd., excepting Wb. 
in the Teubner text. In his (third) annotated edition Wb. also accepts 
Bast’s conjecture, pronouncing it indispensable. 

10 E. αὐτῷ τούτῳ T; αὐτῶν τούτῳ B. 

111). σύ por δοκεῖς ὁ Δαίδαλος Edd. ; σύ μοι δοκεῖς, ὁ Δαίδαλος Adam, who 
thinks the omission of εἶναι in such a case unusual. But see οὐκ ἀναγκαῖόν 
σοι (SC. εἶναι) δοκεῖ δίκαιον εἶναι, 11 E, and cp. Gorg. τος E. Adam’s punctu- 
ation yields an added point, but it is certainly more natural to supply εἶναι 
than ἐντιθέναι, as he proposes. But 15 B seems to favor Adam’s view. 

11 E. [δεῖξαι] : omitted by some Mss. and deleted by Hermann, who is 
followed by S., Wb., A., Bur.; Fr. adopts Bekker’s conjecture διδάξαις and 
reads δεῖξαι, ὅπως av pe διδαξαις. 

12 A. ἐλάττονι B, followed by S., Wb., Fr., A.; ἔλαττον T, followed by 
Bur. As οὐκ ἐλάττονι ἢ virtually = τοσούτῳ, it is to be preferred. 

οὐδὲ χαλεπὸν MSS. ; οὐδὲν χαλεπὸν Naber. 

τόν θ᾽ ἕρξαντα Β (second hand), followed by S..Wb., Fr., A.; τὸν θέρξαντα 
B (first hand); τὸν στέρξαντα T. Adam suggests θρέψαντα, while Burnet 
reads τὸν [θ᾽] ἔρξαντα. 

12 Β. ἐθέλεις εἰπεῖν BT, followed by S., Wb., Fr., A.; ἐθέλει νεικεῖν Bur., 
deriving his suggestion from vetkeow (schol. T) and ἐθέλειν εἴκειν (schol. 
ap. Cram. Avnecd. Par. 1., p- 399)- 

12 C. αἰδὼς δέους B, rightly; αἰδοῦς δέος 1". 

12 E. ἵνα καὶ Μελήτῳ... ὅσια καὶ τὰ μή Mss. It appears to me that the 
words are uncalled for and really out of place here, although the sentiment 
is appropriate in 5 Af. ἀπά τς Ef. The use of the art. in καὶ τὰ μή may 
suggest a spurious addition, since we find simply καὶ μή ing Cand 15 E (és). 

13 B. 4 δέ ye βοηλατικὴ T, rightly followed by Bur.; ἣ δὲ B. B. 

13 D. ἥπερ B, followed by S., Fr., A.; ἥνπερ T, followed by Wb., S?., 
Bur. The dative relieves the stiffness of the sentence. 

13 E. κάλλιστά ye B, followed by S., Fr., Wb., A.; κάλλιστα T, followed 
by Bur. 

14 A. τὸ κέφαλαιον αὐτῶν Mss.; τὸ κεφάλαιον τῆς ἀπεργασίας αὐτῶν 
Schanz. 

ἐργασίας B; dmepyacias T. See the Notes. 

14 C. ἐρωτῶντα T; ἐρῶντα B. 

ἐρωτωμένῳ Arm. Vers. and inferior Mss.; ἐρωμένῳ BT. 

The reading of T, τὸν ἐρωτῶντα τῷ ἐρωμένῳ, shows how easily the text 


102 APPENDIX 


could be corrupted, and how little weight can attach to the Mss. The con- 
fusion between the words is common, and it is as easy to obtain ἐρῶντα 
from ἐρωτῶντα by quasi-haplography as ἐρωτῶντα from ἐρῶντα by quasi- 
dittography. If there was an attempt to correct the text, it is altogether 
more likely that a scribe, knowing the reputed amativeness of Socrates, would 
make the change from ἐρωτῶντα to ἐρῶντα than the reverse. Indeed, the 
colorless phrase ἐπιθυμητὴς . . . τῆς σῆς σοφίας, in 14 D (contrast ἐραστὰς 
ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ Meno 70 B and Λε. 600 D), may well have prompted the change, 
though it cannot really support it. How colorless ἐπιθυμητής is, may be | 
seen by referring to a few examples. In Rep. 475 B it denotes one who 
aspires to honor; in Xen. J/em. I. 2. 60 and Xen. Aol. 28 the word means 
an adherent of Socrates. Lege. 643 E παιδείαν. ποιοῦσαν ἐπιθυμητήν τε καὶ 
ἐραστὴν τοῦ πολίτην γενέσθαι τέλεον affords a striking illustration. Plato 
first uses the weak term ἐπιθυμητής, and then, with conscious exaggeration, 
adds ἐραστής. The presence of ὑπάγῃ (see the Notes) makes for ἐρωτωμένῳ 
rather than for ἐρωμένῳ. Hence I follow Schanz. 

15 B. πολύ ye B; πόλυ T. 

15 C. οὐ μέμνησαι B; οὐδὲ μέμνησαι T. 

ὡμολογοῦμεν B (corrected) ; ὁμολογοῦμεν B (first hand). T. 

τί ἐστι τὸ ὅσιον B; τί ἐστιν ὅσιον T. 

15 D. προσέχων Β, followed by Edd.; προσχὼν T; προσσχὼν Bur. 

16 A. ὅτι Mss., bracketed by S., followed by Wb., Bur.; omitted by 55. 





GREEK 


& = ἀπὸ τούτων a τς A. 
ἀγανακτῶ. ὅτι 4 1). 
᾿ ἀγὼν δημόσιος 2 
ZA ἢ: 
ἅδην (καὶ τούτων μέν) τι E. 
αἰδοῦμαι 12 Β. 
αἰδώς (example) 12 B ff. 
αἰσχύνομαι 12 B, 15 D. 
αἴτησις (sc. παρὰ θεῶν) 14 C. 
αἰτῶ 14 C. 
ἀκινήτως 11 Ὁ). 
ἀκολουθῶ 14 C. 
ἀκριβῶς μαθεῖν 14 A. 
ἀκρόπολις 6 C. 
ἄκων τι D. 
ἀληθῆ λέγεις (in answers) ὃ D (625). 
το E, 14 Ε. 7) καὶ ἀληθῆ γε λέγω 
13 Ὲ. 
ἄλλα (τά Te). .. καὶ δὴ καί 6 Ὁ. 
ἀλλά with imv. 6 B, 14 D./ ἀλλά 
postponed after voc. 3 C. / ἀλλὰ 
nama 6 D, Ὁ C, τῇ Β' “ἀλλὰ . . 
ye 8 E, 12 B. / ἀλλὰ δή 2 B. / ἀλλ 
ἴσως... ἀλλά 3 E. / ἀλλὰ μὲν δὴ 
...yetoD./ ἀλλὰ μὴ - - - ἀλλά 
ie). “ἀλλὰ μὴν - -- ye 6 E. / 
ἀλλὰ τί 14 Ὁ. 
ἀλλήλους for ἄλλους in Mss. 8 D App. 
ἄλλο τι = ἀλλο τι ἤ το D. 
ἄλλο τι 15 (. 
ἀλλότριος 11 1). 
ἅμα with gen. abs. 9 C. 
ἀμελῶ 4 Ὁ. 
ἀμφισβητῶ, ὡς οὐ, ὃ Β,8 (,810. See 
διαφέρομαι, ὡς οὐ. 


An. / ἀγὼν ἴδιος 














INDEX 


ἄν with part. 3 Ὁ. / av repeated 7 B./ 
av to be supplied from preceding 
clause 15 D. 

ἀνάγκη 6 B. / ἀνάγκη (in answers) 
10 C. / πολλὴ ἀνάγκη (in answers) 
ay) 1D) 

avayw 6 C. 

ἀνατρεπτικός 2 A ἢ. 

ἀνατρέπω 14 B. 

ἀνδροφόνος 4 D (ds), 9 A. 

ἄνευ μισθοῦ 3 1). 

ἀνοσιότης (3 ὁσιότης. μὴ ὁσιότης) 5 D 
App. 

ἀντιδωροῦμαι 14 E. 

ἀπαλλάττομαι 15 E. 

ἀπεργάζομαι 13 E, 14 A. 

ἀπεργασία 13 D, 13 E (ό2). / ἀπερ- 
γασία to be supplied 13 D, 13 E 
(625). 

ἀπέρχομαι 15 Ἐ. 

ἁπλῶς 14 Β. 


. ἀπό (ὠφελεῖσθαι ἀπό) 15 A, (ὠφελία 


ἀπό) 14 Ἑ. 

ἀποβλέπω εἰς 6 Ἐ. 

ἀποδειλιάζω 15 C. 

ἀποδέχομαι 6 A. / ἀποδέχομαι with 
gen. 9 E. 

ἀποδιδράσκω τι C. 

ἀποκρύπτομαι 11 B, 15 E. 

ἀποκτείνω 4 Ὁ (dis). See κτείνω. 

᾿Απόλλων Λύκειος 2 An. 

ἀποσφάττω 4 C. 

ἀποτρέπομαι 14 C. 

apa postponed 6 B. 7 apa ye 6 A. ᾿ 


3 o A 7 ἘΞ ἈΝ ὃ 
apa. LVM . « - 1) iva. μεν . «ἀνα O€ 


103 


104 GREEK 
12 C. 7 ap οὗν 5 A, 11 E. / ap’ οὖν 
ov 14 1D: f ἄρα οὐ 7D. / ap: 
οὐχ οὕτω ὃ A, ὃ E. 

ἀριθμός (example) 12 C 

ἄρτι with imperf. 15 A, C. / ἄρτι with 
aor. 6 C (dis), 9 C. 

ἄρτιος (apiOj.0s) 12 1). ἡτὸ ἄρτιον 12 D. 

appnpopa 6 Cn. 

ἀσέβεια 5 C, 12 E. 

ἀτεχνῶς 3 A. / [ἀτεχνῶς] 5 C App. 

av vicissim 4 E, 5 D,6 A. 

αὐτός intensive with pers. pron. 11 C. / 
αὐτὸς αὑτῷ ὃ αὐτός 5 D. / αὐτὸς 
αὑτῷ ὅμοιος 5 1). / αὐτοῦ in pred. 
posit. 4 Ὁ. 7} ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ μένειν 11 C. 

αὐτοσχεδιάζω 5 5 A, Τ0 A. 

ad “Ἑστίας ἄρχεσθαι (proverb) 3 A. 

ἀφίημι with gen. 5 B, g Ὁ. 

ἀφοσιῶ 4 C. 


βαδίζω 15 B (bis). 

βασιλεύς (ὁ ἄρχων) 2A 
βλάστη 3 A. 

βοηλατική. 7, (example) 13 B 
βοῦς (example) 13 B. 


yap (in short answers) εἴρηται yap 
7 B, καὶ yap ἔστιν 6 1). / καὶ yap 
510. τῷ Δ 15. ὦ, τῇ Β: “γὰρ. og 
12. Ὁ ἡ γὰρ τὸι 5 Β, 5 C. / γάρ 
ποῦ 6 D, 13 A, 15 C. os yap που 
“ΠΣ “οὐ γὰρ - ye2 Β,4Δ.} 
yap mov... ye 12 ς. 7 οὐ γάρ που 
“ΕΖ ἢ 5. 15: ἢ ΤΠ ΠΣ ἢ, 


πῶς γὰρ ov; in answers ΤῸ A, 
Ιο D. See πῶς δ᾽ ov; / οὐ yap 
οὖν 2 B. 


ye with gen. abs., marking cond. 
force, αὐ ΡΣ yer 1 years. 7 
ye with particles ἔτι ye 6 B, διότι 
ye 10 D, εἴ ye 10 E, ἵνα ye 12 B, 
τς “καὶ τς ἌΡΗ Εν 
τ ἘΣ 3} ΠΕΣ ἡ Καὶ os 
mov 13 Β: 13 E. 








INDEX 


yepa, sacrifices,’ 15 A. 

γεωργός (example) 14 A. 

γίγνομαι (of the occurrence of the 
δαιμόνιον) 3 B. 

γραφή vs. δίκη 2 An. 


δαιμόνιον, τό, 3 B. 

δέ following re 3 E. / δέ ye 7 E, 10 E, 
13 B. / dé ye . . . ἀλλ᾽ ὅμῶς 14A. 
Cp. καὶ yap . - - GAN ὅμως 13 E. / 
οὐδέ ye 13 A. / δὲ δή 3 E, 4B, 4E, © 
FAS, DZ 

δείδω 12 B. 

δεῖν. Attic for δέον, 4 D. 





δέομαι, ‘want,’ with παρά and gen., Ὶ 
iit 1D) TiAl, 12), ἢ 

δέος (example) 12 B Ἢ 

δεσμά, τά, (only occurrence of this — 
plural in Plato) 9 A. 7 

δή (scornful) g A. / δή with την. 
5 D, 7 A, τὸ ἌΧ ῚΖ D zs) τα 
(64). / δὴ οὖν καί 4 1). 7 οὔτοι δὴ 
... ye2A. / γὰρ δή 12 A. πῶς 
δή το D. ' 

δῆλον ὅτι 3 A, 7 A, 9 B, 13 E (zs). 

δῆλος εἶ asyndetic 14 B. 

δημότης 2 Β ἡ. 

δήμων (τῶν) Πιτθεύς 2 Β. ν᾿ 


δήπου ὃ D. 

διὰ βραχυτέρων 14 Β. 
διακελεύομαι 6 1). 
διακρίνω 7 C. 
διαπράττομαι 13 B. 
διατριβή 2 A. 
διατρίβω 2 A. 


διαφέρω with gen. and dat. 4 E. / 
διαφέρομαι with dat. 7 B, ὃ Β. 
(Gis). , διαφέρομαι, ὡς ov, ὃ B 


See ἀμφισβητῶ, ws οὐ. 
διαφθείρω. play on two senses of, 5 B. 
διαφορά 7 B, 7 Ὁ. 
διηγοῦμαι 6 C (dis). 
διισχυρίζομαι 5 C. 
δικάζομαι with dat. 4 E. 


ote tes 
πον 


GREEK 















δίκαιον, τό, the genus to which τὸ 

ὅσιον belongs, 11 E. 

δίκαιος φόνος 4 Bn. 

δίκη vs. γραφή 2 An. / δίκη δημοσία. 
2An. / δίκη ἰδία 2 An. / δίκην 
διδόναι 8 B ff. ᾿ δίκην διώκω, φεύγω, 
3 E. 

διὸ δή [Ὁ dv 

διότι το B f. 

διχοτομία 12 Dn. 

διωκάθω τς 10. 

διώκω, in two senses, 4 A. if διώκω | € 
δίκην 3 E. 

δοκῶ = δοκεῖ μοι 7 B. / δοκῶ without 

εἶναι τι D, τι E. 

δόξα πονηρίας 12 C. 

δοῦλος 13 D. 

δρῶ epanaleptic 8 B. 


ἃ δή] 6 A App. 






















δυσμαθέστερος 9 B. 
δυσχερῶς πως ἀποδέχομαι 6 A. 
δωροῦμαι. πέδαι τς 


- yeg B. 
éavTe . . . eavte 5 D. 
ἐγκωμιάζω ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ 9 Β. 

εἰ after verbs of feeling 4 D n. / εἰ dpa | 
mB. “εῖ γε. - . εἰ μὲν. .. εἰ δέ 
Io ἘΣ: ἡ εἰ καὶ 4. [91 7 εἰ μή 14 Ἐ.7 
εἰ δὲ μή 5 Β. 7 εἰ ὅτι μάλιστα 4 D, 
Ὁ 6. 7 εἰοὕτω ... καὶ οὕτω 6E. / 
εἰ βούλει 9 C. / εἰ οὖν σοι φίλον 
11 Β. 7 εἰ οὕτως ἥδιόν σοι ὀνομάζειν 
14 E. / ἰδὲ yap εἰ 11 E. / τὸ σὺν 
σκόπει, ci, 9 Ὁ. Cp. 7 D. 

Sos not hypostatic 6 D. 

εἶεν 13 Ὁ. ᾿- 

sivat, ‘to be true,’ 12 B. 

imep 8 D, 8 Ε΄. / cimep... ye 8C./ 
εἴπερ τις ἄλλος ἀνθρώπων 15 D. 
imov ἄν where imperf. was to be ex- 
pected 12 D, 14 B. 








is αὖθις 6 C, 15 E. 


INDEX 105 
eure* 2..." τ εἶτει AB (225). ἡ, εἰπε won 
εἴτε ὁτιδὴ πάσχει τι B. / εἴτ᾽ οὖν 
. εἴτε 3 Ὁ. 
ἑκάστοτε 3 Bub: 


ἐκεῖ Tap ἡμῖν 4 Ὁ. 

ἐκεῖνος With subst. virtually in appos. 
5 B. 7 ἐκεῖνος and αὐτοῦ referring to 
the same object 6 E (ἐκεῖνος first), 
14D (ἐκεῖνος second, as usual). 

ἐκκεχυμένως 3) 1). 

ἔκτεινεν ὃ κτείνας, legal archaism, 4 B. 

ἐκτέμνω 6 A. 


| ἐκ τούτου τοῦ λόγου 14 D. 


ἑκὼν εἶναι 15 C. 

ἐλεγκτικός 2 An. 

ἐλπὶς... 

ἐμεμαθήκη 14 C. 

ἐμοῦ λέγοντος σκόπει, εἰ, 7 C. 

ἐμπορική τις τέχνη ἡ ὁσιότης θεοῖς καὶ 
ἀνθρώπων παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων 14 E. 

ἐναντίος With gen. 7 E, 14 B. 7 τὸ 
ἐναντιώτατον 7 A. / τὰ ἐναντία AE 
yew αὐτὸν ἑαυτῷ 6 A. / ἐναντίον 7 
12 A. 7 ἐναντίως ἔχετον 11 A. 

ἐνδεής εἰμι ἔτι σμικροῦ τινος 13 A. 

ἐνδείκνυμι 9 A, 9 B (dts), 15 Ε. 

ἐνδεικτικός 2 A n. 

ἐν δίκῃ 4 B (des). 

ἕνεκα ἐμοῦ τι D. 

ἐννοῶ 2.8. ΟΕ τ ὄρ γῶ 
EX. 

ἐντίθημι τι C. 

ἐν τῷ ἔμπροσθεν 15 (. 

ἐξ ἀρχῆς πάλιν 15 C. 
ἀρχῆς τι Β. 

ἐξευρίσκω 12 10. 

ἐξηγητής (sc. τῶν ὁσίων) 4 C, 4 D, 
9 Α. 

ἔοικεν in answers 8 A, τὸ D, 15 C. 

ἐπεί with imv. 5 E./éma.. . ye 4C, 
8 D,.9 B (zs), 11 19: 

ἐπειδή τι E, 14 C. 7 ἐπειδήπ' rep 13 E. 

ἐπεκδιδάσκω (following διδάσκω 6 E) 
FN 


τ ὔτι τὶ ἘΣ 


ε 
- WS. - 


Cp. πάλιν ἐξ 


106 GREEK 

ἐπεξέρχομαι (sive ἐπεξιέναι) τινὶ τινὸς" 
4 Β, 4 Ὁ, 4 Ε. / ἐπεξιέναι τινί (αἰέ- 
cut rei) 4 C. 

ἐπι- in comp. 2 Β n. / ἐπὶ λογισμὸν 
(τὸ μετρεῖν, TO ἱστάναι) ἔρχεσθαι 
7 B, 7 C (Gis). / ἐπὶ tiva κρίσιν 
ἀφικνεῖσθαι 7 C. / ἐπ᾿ ἀγαθῷ τινι 
... καὶ ὠφελία 15 B,13.C. Cp. ἐπὶ] 
βλάβῃ τ3 Ὁ. / ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ εἶναι τ4 C. / 
ἐπὶ σχολῆς 6 C. 

ἐπίγρυπος 2 Β. 

ἐπιδείκνυμι 9 Β. 

ἐπιθυμητὴς τῆς σῆς σοφίας 14 D. 

ἐπίσιμος 2 Bn. 

ἐπισκήπτομαι With gen. and dat. g A. 

ἐπισκοπῶ 9 E. 

ἐπιστήμη τις τοῦ θύειν τε καὶ εὔχεσθαι 
τὸ ὅσιον 14 (. / ἐπιστήμη αἰτήσεως 
καὶ δύσεως θεοῖς ὁσιότης 14 C. 

ἐπιτρέπω 5 E. 

ἐπιτυχών, ὃ, 4 A. 

ἐπίχαρις 2 Bn. 

ἐπιχειρῶ 15 D. 

ἕπομαι 12 A, 12 C. 

ἐργασία (following ἀπεργασία 13 E) | 
14 A. 

ἐργαστῖναι 6 Cn. 

ἔργον 13 D, 13 E. 7 ἐκεῖνο τὸ wayxa- | 
λον ἔργον 13 E. / οὐκ ὀλίγον ἔργον. 
9 Β. / πλεώνος ἔργου 14 A. 7 τὰ 
ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἔργα τι C. 

ἔρξαντα, Tov, 12 A. 

ἔρομαι 6 C. 

ἐρωτώμενος (? ἐρώμενος) 14 C App. 

ἐρωτῶν (? ἐρῶν) 14 C App. 

ἕτερος with gen. 10 A (25). το D, 
11 A. / ἕτερος = ἄλλος 2 B. / Ov 
ἕτερα τοιαῦτα 6 A. 

εὐγένειος 2 B. 

εὐδιάβολος 3 B. 

EvOpvdpov . . . παρ᾽ Ἐὐθύφρονος g C. 

εὖ λέγειν 9 B. 

εὖ μάλα 4 A. 

εὖ 010 ὅτι 6 C. 





Ἡράκλεις (exclamation) 4 A. 


᾿ἱδρύομαι 11 B, τι Ὁ. 


INDEX 


εὐσέβεια 13 B. 

εὐσεβής = ὅσιος 12 E (dis). - 
εὔχομαι 14 B, 14 C (ῤ15). 
ἔχειν = οὕτως ἔχειν 9 E. 
ἔχθρα καὶ ὀργαί 7 B. 


Ζεὺς φίλιος 6 Β n. 
ζητητικός 2 A ἢ. 









7 γάρ 7E,8 Ὁ, 8 E, 13 A. / ἦ ποὺ 
4A. 
n, ‘or rather,’ withdrawing the pre-— 
vious quest., 11 E./% δῆλα δή 
4 Β. 


7 10 A. 
ἡγεῖσθαι θεούς vs. νομίζειν θεούς 3 Bn. 


ἤδη 3 E. ; 
ἥντινα. in answer, retaining the case- 
form of the quest., 2 C. 


θεομισής 9 C (bis). 

θεοφιλής 9 C, το D (four times), 10 Ε΄ 
(d¢s), etc. Ἵ 

θεραπεία, ἣ τῶν θεῶν -- τὸ ὅσιον 
17. ἘΣ 

θεραπεύω 13 Α. 

θής 15 D. 

θητεύω 4 C, 9 A. 

θύω 14 B, 14 C (675). 


ἰατρός (example) 13 D. q 
ide yap εἰ 11 E. Cp. σκόπει εἰ 7 D, 

9 D. 
ἰδέα. (not hypostatic) 5 Ὁ, 6 Ὁ. . 


ἴθι with imv. ὃ E, 9 A. 

iva, ‘where,’ 12 B ff. / ἵναπερ 12 Ὁ. 
. Wa ye 12 B. 

iva καί 12 Ε. 

ἱππική, 9, (example) 13 A. 

ἱππικός, ὃ, (example) 13 A. 

ἵππος (example) 13 A ἢ 

ἰσοσκελής (sc. ἀριθμός 12 D. 


GREEK 















Kat with imv. 3 A. 7 καὶ μάλα 14 C. / 
καὶ αὐτός 6 Β. 7 καὶ ἄλλοθι καί 
8 C. 7 καὶ ἄλλος πού τις καί 5 C. / 
Kal... kal... τε... Kal... 
τε. . . καὶ δὴ καί 6 B. / καὶ δὴ καί 
OC, τὸ Αἰ. / Kal... δή το Β. 7 
καὶ γάρ 6 D, 12 A, 14 Β. / καὶ γὰρ 

. GAN ὅμως 13 E. Cp. καίτοι 

. GAN ὅμως 5 Ὁ. / Kal... yap 
To 3B. “καὶ μὴν -- . ye 12 A./ 
καὶ δῆτα 11 D. Forxal ... yeand 
. γέπου; Vide 5.U. γε. 


ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως 3. Cp. καὶ] 
. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως 13 Ε. 


; αλῶς = ὀρθῶς, ἀληθῶς, 9 E (2), 
5 ἘΠ τς €: Cp. παγκάλως. 

ata- in composit., with γιγνώσκω, 
1 2B, γελῶ 3 C (dis), βάλλω 4 Ὁ, 
5 E, ποικίλλω 6 C, ὁρῶ ς C. / κατὰ 
νοῦν 3 E. / κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον 

















7 E./ κατὰ τὰ αὐτά ὃ Β. 


K εκροπίς (tribe) 2 2 Bin. 

κεφάλαιον, τό, adv., 8 E. / τὸ κεφά- 
λαιον αὐτῶν 14 A. Cp. τοῦτο τῆς 
τέχνης 11 D. / τὸ κεφάλαιον τῆς 
ἐργασίας 14 A. Cp. τὸ κεφάλαιον 
αὐτῶν τῆς ἀπεργασίας 14 A. 
κεχαρισμένος, adj., 14 B (dis), 15 A. 
κινδυνεύω = δοκῶ 2 C, 8 A, τι A, 
ΕἼΤ 10. 

κύκλῳ περιιέναι τς B. 

τυνηγετική. ἧ, (example) 13 A. 
ζυνηγετικός, 6, (example) 13 A. 

v (example) 13 A. 


λαγχάνω δίκην 5 B. 
A ‘command,’ 





12 E. / λέγομέν τι 


INDEX 107 
κτλ. in introducing a new subject 
Io A. 
΄ a Ν 

λόγος, ὃ, ἡμῖν περιελθὼν πάλιν εἰς ταὐ- 
τὸν ἥκει τς Β. 


᾿Αύκειον 2 A. 


μὰ Av’ οὐκ ἔγωγε 13 C (625). 

μαιευτικός 2 A ἢ. 

μάλιστά ye 15 B. / εἰ ὅτι μάλιστα 
4 D, 9 Ὁ. / πάντων ye μάλιστα 
φίλον τς B. 

μανθάνω 13 1). / μανθάνω ὅτι 3 Β, 
9 Β. 7 μανθάνω παρά with gen. 
15 ἘΣ. 

μάντις 3 Ε. 

μέλλω ς Ὁ. 

μέν solitartum 5. C, ὃ E, 9 Ο. 7} μὲν 
γὰρ - - - ἀλλὰ yap ο C. / μὲν οὖν 
10. δ᾽ ΘΟ 14 (E110). 

μέντοι νὴ Δία 4 Β. 

μέρος (logical subdivision) 12 D ff. / 
TO ποῖον μέρος 12 D, 12 E. / ποῖον 
μέρος 12 1). / μέρος τὸ ὅσιον τοῦ 
δικαίου 12 D. 

μὴ ov after verbs of fearing 15 1). " μὴ 
ὁσιότης 5 D App. / μὴ μόνον γε 

. ἀλλα 6 C. 

μηδέν for οὐδέν with inf. after verda 
sentiendi et declarandi 6 15, 12 B. 

μίασμα 40. 

μόνα for μόνον 6 C App. 

μόριον (logical subdivision) 12 Ὁ. 


τὰ 5 ἘΣ eto .etor Β 15) As 
13 E. 7 ναὶ μὰ Δία 5 Β. 

ναυπηγός (example) 13 10. 

νεώτερον 2A. Cp. Protag. 310 B. 

νίκη ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ (example) 14 A. 

νομίζω 3 B, 5 Ε. 

νόμιμος 5 E (see App.). 

νουθετῶ 5 B. 

νοῶ II B. 

νυν, illative, 8 E. 

yoy Oe TIA, τ G< 14°C. fivby ee 


1355; 


108 GREEK 
πὰρ τ Ὁ τῷ Cx / iver ce, 
3: 

νυνί 9 E. 


nam ~~ 
νῷ ἔχειν = ἐννοεῖν 2 B. 


οἷα ποιεῖς 15 E. 

οἴει (? parenthetical) 15 A. 

οἰκία (example) 13 E. 

οἰκοδόμος (example) 13 E. 

οἶκος, ὃ ἴδιος, 14 B. 

οἶμαι. δὲ καί 3 E. Cp. οἴει 15 A. 

οἷον velut 12 D, 13 A. / οἷον τοιόνδε 
13 B. 7 οἷον τετανότριχα = τοιοῦτον, 
οἷος τετανόθριξ ἐστίν 2 B. 

οἷον φιλεῖσθαι 11 A (dis). 

οἵόσπερ καί 13 A. 

ὀλίγον ἔργον 9 B. 

ὀλίγον πρότερον 14 A. 

ὀλιγορῶ with gen. 4 D. 

ὁμόσε ἰέναι 3 C. 

ὁμοτράπεζος 4 B. 

ὅμως with part. 8 Ὁ. 

ov omitted with τυγχάνω 8 A. 

ὅπερ οὖν καί 4 Ὁ. 

ὅπῃ ἀποβήσεται 3 E. 

ὁπότερα πλείω 7 Β. 

ὅπως with fut. indic. 2 Ὁ. / ὅπως μή 
with verb of fearing 4 E. 

ὀργαί 7 B. 

ὀργίζομαι with dat. 4 C, 7 B, 7 C. 

ὀρθῶς νομίζειν 5 B. 

ὁρίζω 9 C, ο D. 

os ye, causal, 4 A, 6 B. 

ὅσιον, τό, vid. s.v. Piety. | ov ταὐτὸν 
δ᾽ ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ TO ἐναντιώτατον, TO | 
ὅσιον τῷ ἀνοσίῳ 7 Δ. / ἄρα τὸ ὅσιον 
ὅτι ὅσιόν ἐστιν φιλεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν 
θεῶν, ἢ ὅτι φιλεῖται ὅσιόν ἐστιν ; 
10 A. / μόριον γὰρ τοῦ δικαίου τὸ 
ὅσιον 12 1). "7 τὸ ὅσιον καὶ μή 9 Ὁ, 
Ig E (fs). /7a.. . dota Καὶ τὰ 
py 12 E. 

OOLOTAS Ὁ» 15 519 Cy ign 9.5. ὁ 
(62s). )δὁσιότης without the art. 14 D. 





INDEX 


ὅστις in indir. quest. 13 A. / ὅστις 
(indir. rel., instead of interr., used 
in repeating a quest.) 2 C. 

ὁστισοῦν 5 E. 

ὅταν γιγνώμεθα = ἑκάστοτε 7 D. 

ὅτι with superl. 2 D, 4 9, 9 C. / om 
introducing orat. recta 5 A. / ὅτι 
after verbs of feeling 4 Ὁ. / ὅτι δή 
5. ΒΣ 

οὔκ, ἀλλά το Β, το D. / οὐκ. . . ἀλλὰ 

. οὐ μέντοι 12 Ὁ. / οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως 
15 D. 7 οὐ πάνυ 2 B, 3 D. Cp. οὐδῆ 
... πάνυ τι 2 B. 7 οὐκ ἐλάττονι F 
= τοσούτῳ 12 A. 

οὐδαμῶς τοῦτό ye 8 C. 

οὐδ᾽ αὐτός 2B. Cp. καὶ αὐτός. / οὐδέ, 
‘neither,’ 12 A. / οὐδὲ δοκεῖ ὁρᾶν 5 C. 

οὐδέν (an emphatic οὐ) ὃ C./ovdev ὅτι 
οὐκ ἀληθὲς εἴρηκα 3 C. Cp. τοῦτο 
ἀληθὲς λέγεις 8 Ε. / οὐδὲν πρᾶγμα 
3 E,4D./ovdev γὰρ ἡμῖν ἐστιν ἀγα- 
Gov ὅτι ἂν μὴ ἐκεῖνοι (sc. οἱ θεοὶ 
δῶσιν 14 E. 7 οὐδὲν ἥδιον ἔμοιγε 
14 ἘΣ 

οὐδέτερα ἢ ἀμφότερα ο D. 

οὐσία 11 A. 

οὗτος in the pred. 7 1). / οὗτος scorn- 
ful 5 C./ovros epanaleptic 7 B, 
8 B, 10 B, 14 B. / τοῦτο τῆς τέχνης 
τ 19. ᾿ 

οὕτω epanaleptic 6 A, ο D. οὕτω 
with part. condit. 5 E. 7 οὕτω = 526 
temere 3B, 9 E. / οὕτω as an an- 
swer 8 A, 13 A. / οὕτω μὲν οὖν 7 A. 

ovTwot 4 E. 

| ovxé 14 C, 15 B. 

ὄφελος, οὐδέν, 4 E. 


ard 








= i en ee 


παγκάλως 7 A. 

πάθος... ὅτι πέπονθε τι A. 

πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τι B. Cp. ἐξ 
πάλιν 15 C. 

πάμπολλα ὃ C. 

Παναθήναια, τὰ μεγάλα, 6 C. 





GREEK 








































παντάπασιν τι A. 

πανταχοῦ 12 D. 

πάντως δήπου 5 10. 

πάνυ ye 2B, 7 E, 8 E, 9 B (as), 

ΝΒ: τὸ C, 12 B (015); 12 Ὁ, 13 A, 
mans, 15. Ἂν τος. 

πάνυ μὲν οὖν 7 A, 13 Ὁ. 

παρά with pers. dat. 4 C. / παρά with 
pers. gen., ¢.g. with δέομαι, ‘need,’ 
14 Ὁ, 14 E; with λαμβάνω 14 E, 
15 A (¢er); with μανθάνω Ὁ. 2. Ε 
140; with σοφὸς forges ΤΡ: 

Besar Gis: 

παρακινδυνεύω 15 D. 

παροινῶ 4 C. 

πᾶς; various forms of plur., e.g. πάντες 
θεοί ο C; θεοὶ πάντες 10D; πάντες 
ot θεοί 9 D; οἱ θεοὶ ἅπαντες 9 C. / 
πᾶν τοὐναντίον 5 D. / πᾶν (πάντα) 
mow ὃ C (ό25). ἡπαντὶ τρόπῳ 15 D./ 
παντὸς μᾶλλον 9 A. } πάντων γε 
μάλιστα φίλον (xot a strengthened 
superl. Ni Nee 

πάσχω, denoting the fasszve rela- 
tion, τὸ C (ter). 7 πάσχω ὑπό του 
το Ὁ- 

παύομαι With part. 8 (, 9 Β. 

πειραστικός 2 An. 

πελάτης 4 C. 

πέπλος 6C. Cp. Hom. Z go. 

περὶ πολλοῦ ποιοῦμαι With inf. 5 

περιέρχομαι τι B. 

περιιέναι 11 (, τς Β (dz). 

περιττόν. τό, as a Subdivision of ἀριθ- 

μός, 2: 

πετόμενόν τινα διώκω (proverb) 4 A. 

ἐτθεύς, belonging to the deme Πέίτ-. 

Gos, 2 B. 


A. 


ἘΣ. 
λεονεκτῶ with pers. gen. 15 A. 
λοῖον (example) 13 E. 
τλοῦτος τῆς σοφίας 12 A. 
ποιητής, ὃ, 12 Α. 





INDEX 109 


ποίκιλμα 6 C. 

ποῖός τις 5 C. / ποῖον μέρος 12 D. / τὸ 
ποῖον μέρος 12 D, 12 E. 

πολιτικά, τά, 2 C. 

πολύ, hyperbaton of, 5 C, 14 Βι)πολλὴ 
ἀνάγκη: in answer, 7 D./ πολλὰ καὶ 
καλά 13 E. [ πολλοῦ καὶ δέω 13. / 
πολλοῦ γε δεῖ with inf. 4 A. 

πονηρία 12 C. 

πόρρω σοφίας ἐλαύνων 4 B. 

ποτε, after interr. pronouns and ad- 
verbs, 3 Dn. 

πρᾶγμα; ‘act,’ ‘deed,’ 4 E. 

πρίν with inf. aor. 4 D, 9 A. / πρὶν av 
with subjunct. 15 C, 15 D. 

mpo, temp., 5 A. 

προαποκάμνω τὶ E. 

πρόθυμος 14 B. / προθύμως τι Β. 

προκαλοῦμαι 5 A, 5 Β. 

πρός with acc. = apud 2 A, 3 Β. 7 
πρός With acc. = ‘ with,’ ‘with refer- 
ence to,’ 5 A, 7 B. / zpos with dat. 
vez = ‘in addition to,’ 11 D (ézs)./ 
πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν σκοπῶ 9 C./mpos Διός 
4E, 5 C, 13 E. 7 πρὸς Φιλίου 6 Β. 

προσέχω τὸν νοῦν 14 1), 15 10. 

προσφιλές. τὸ τοῖς θεοῖς. 6 E ff. 

πρότερον ἤ = μᾶλλον 7 (Cp. ἀντ᾽ ἐμοῦ 
5 B) 5 B,5C. 

προτίθεμαι |Β. 

πῶς γὰρ οὔ: Io A, Io D. 7 πῶς δ᾽ οὔ; 5, 
15 165 ARAN 


ῥᾷστα 9 10. 


᾿σαθρός 5G 
σαφής 9 A. / σαφῶς 15 D. 





πλέον (ἐπί), of logical extension, 


-σθων, imperatives ending in, 9 Ὁ 
App. 

| σκαληνός (sc. ἀριθμός) 12 D 

᾿ σκοπῶ πρὸς ἐμαυτόν 9 C. VES TO σὸν OKO- 
me, εἰ 9 D. 

σκῶμμα τι C. 


σοφία, ‘skill, 11 D 





Tio 


σοφός, ‘skillful,’ 11 1). / σοφὸς yiyvo- 
μαι παρά τινος 15 E. 

σπάνιον αὑτὸν παρέχειν 3 1). 

σπεύδω 15 E. 

στασιάζω with dat. pers. 7 E, 8 A. 

στοά. ἡ TOV βασιλέως. 2 A. 

στρατηγός (example) 14 A. 

συγγένειαν (κατὰ τὴν ἐκείνου) II C. 

συγχωρῶ το C, 136. 

συμπροθυμοῦμαι, ὅπως τι E. 

συνδέω 4 C,9 A (625). 

συνδοκεῖ ταῦτα Kal gol 6 A. 

συνειδώς 4 C. 

συνέστιος 4 B. 

συνίημι 13 A, 14 Ὁ. 

συντείνω 12 A. 

σχεδόν τι τι C. 

σῴζω 14 B. 


ταῦτα = διὰ ταῦτα 4 D. 

τάχα βέλτιον εἰσόμεθα ο E. 

τες 5 Β' ἥπε τ᾿ καὶ unitine 
similars δὲ ΒΡ: ἢ Ἂν Εἴ: ἡ Te. 
uniting opposites 4 E (és), etc. 

τεκμήριον 5 E. 

τετανόθριξ 2 B. 

τεχνικός 14 E, 15 B. 

ti 62 4A, 7 D, 8 B, 13 D. / ri dé dy 
14 A./ ri dn 13 D, 14C. ἡ ri δὴ οὖν 
10 C./ri δήποτε τς A./ τί yap 
κωλύει 9 D. / τί yap καὶ φήσομεν 
6B. 7 τί καὶ ποιῶν 3 A. / τί λέγομεν 
7 Α. 7 τί λέγει ὃ λέγων ο Ε. / τίνα 
κρίσιν = τίνος κρίσιν 7 C. 7 τί νεώ- 
τερον 2 Α. 

τιμή, ‘sacrifice, 15 A. 

τὸ βαρύτερόν τε Kal κουφότερον = 
‘weight’ (example) 7 C. 

τὸ δέτι 12 A. 


΄ 
. Και 


τὸ μεῖζον καὶ ἔλαττον = ‘size’ (exam- | 


jo) Fey) yale 
τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο 12 D. 
τὸ πρότερον 6 D. 
τὸ σόν ο 1). 


GREEK INDEX 








i) 


τοίνυν 6 E, 12 C, τς E. 7 τοίνυν intro- 
duces definitions 5 D, 6 E, 12 E. 

τοιοῦτος referring vaguely to what pre- 
cedes 3 C, 4 Ὁ, 4 Ὁ, 6 B. 7 δι erepa 
τοιαῦτα 6 A. 

τοσούτῳ, ὅσῳ τι 1). 

τοῦτο ἀληθὲς λέγεις 8 Ε. 

τροφή. ἡ ἐκ τῆς γῆς; (example) 14 A. 

Tpuvp® 11 E, 12 A. 

τυγχάνω without part. 8 A. 

τῷ ὄντι 6 B, 


ὑγίεια (example) 13 Ὁ. 

ὑπάγω 14 C. 

ὑπέρ 4 Β, 15 D. 

ὑπηρέτης 13 EE: 

ὑπηρετική adj. 12:10, 13 Ὲ “ὑπηρετικὴ — 
els τι 13 Diya ὑπηρετική, ἢ, 130 
(15). / ὑπηρετική τις (? θεραπεία) 
ΤΠ ID), 

ὑπό with gen. of agent after intrans. 
verbs 3 D, 4 B, 4 Ὁ, 12 A, 13 Bam 
(er); 16 A. i 

ὑπόθεσις τι C. 

ὑποτίθεμαι ο 1). 





Ἢ 


Ἵ 





φέρε δή 7 A. 

φεύγω (δίκην) 3 E. 

φησί repeated 3 B. 

φθάνω with aor. part. 9 A. 

φιλανθρωπία 3 D. 

φοβοῦμαι 12 B. 

φόνος δίκαιος 4 Bn. 

φροντίζω ὑπέρ twos 4 Ὁ. Cp. οὐδὲν 
αὐτῶν χρὴ φροντίζειν 3 C. 

φυλάττω, ‘regard,’ ‘consider,’ 4 B. 

φυτεύω 12 A. 


χαλεπαίνω, ὅτι 6 A. 

χαμαὶ πεσεῖν (proverb) 14 Ὁ. 
χάρις, ‘sacrifice,’ 15 A. 

χρῶμαι with pred. dat. 6 E, 13 E. 


ὦ apiote 7 B, 13 E./@ βέλτιστε4 A.J 


GREEK 













ὦ βέλτιστε Ἐὐῤθύφρον 15 Ε. “ὦ ᾽γαθέ 
9 Ε. 7 ὦ γενναῖε Εὐθύφρον 7 10. / 
ὦ ἑταῖρε 610, τι D, 15 E. / ὦ Ἐὐθύ- 
pov 2 A (see Αρρ.). / ὦ θαυμάσιε 
3 Β, 8A, 8 Ὁ. 7 ὦ θαυμάσιε Ἐῤθύ- 
ῴρον 5 Α. ὦ μακάριε 12 Α. ὦ 
φίλε 14 A, 14 Ὁ. 7 ὦ φίλε ἑταῖρε 
56. ) ὦ φίλε Ἐῤθύφρον το Ε. / ὦ 
φίλε που τῶμον ἀλλ Ὁ: 
δὲ 7 Β. 

ρα with inf. 15 E. 

ys Circumstantial with imperf. 4 Ὁ. / 





INDEX ie 
ὡς with pres. part. 3 B, 12 E. / ὡς 
with fut. part. Eades / ss OTe 
15 E. fa ὡς apa 11 (. fé ὡς restrictive, 
ὡς σὺ λέγεις Io 1), ὡς ὁ σὸς λόγος 
10 D, ὥς φησι 2 C, 3 A, 3 B, ὥς γε 
τὸ εἰκός 3 A, ὡς οὕτω γ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι 
3 B. / ὡς οὐ 8 Β' 8 C, 8 D. 

ὡς ἀληθῶς 6 B, 7 A App. 

ὥσπερ εἰκός 2 1). 

ὥστε, in transitions, 8 A, 9 C. 

ὠφέλιμος 15 B. 

ὠφελοῦμαι (pass.) 13 B. 





᾿ ‘ 


— yo ae 


>, 
g 
᾿ 
5 
Γ 
. 


Abstract subst. in plur. 7 B, 13 A. 

Accusative abs. following dependent 
pattesin gen. 4 19. / acc. of part. 
depending on antecedent dat. 5 A./ 
acc. as subj. of inf., although the 
same as that of main verb, ἐμέ 3 E./ 
adv. acc. τίνα τρόπον 2 C, τὸ ἐναν- 
tiov 10 B, τοσοῦτον 15 A. / cognate 
gee; 25) " Β; 16 A. / inner acc. 
5 A, 7 D. /inner acc. with pass. 
verb τί ὠφελοῦνται 15 A. 

Active and passive, as categories, 
m= 610 A fi. 
Adverb 

72,1. 
Anacoluthon 13 A. See gD App. 
Answer, retaining case-form of ques- 

tion, ἥντινα ; οὐκ ἀγεννῆ 2 C. 
Anytus2 Bn. , 

Aorist with ἄν, where imperf. was ex- 
pected, εἶπον av 12 D, εἶπες av 14 B. 

Archon Basileus 2 A. 

Arithmetic, Greek, largely geometri- 
cal, 12 Dn. 

Article with whole clause 8 Ὁ. / art. 
wanting with abstract subst. ὁσιότης 
14 D. / art. repeated or omitted in 
series 7 C, 7 D. /art. with proper 
Pacts τς Bs τὸ 9. / art. 
omitted with epexegetic inf. 5 D, 

mar A. 

Asyndeton ὃ E,9 C, 146. 

Attraction οἷον 2 B, ὅσῳ 11 D. 
































in attrib. position 5 A, 


Ι loodguiltiness. See piacpa. 
EUTHYPHRO — 8 





PNGLISH INDEX 


City, the, as Mother, 2 C. 

Cleruchs, Athenian, 4 C n. 

Comparative adj. used absolutely vew- 
τερον 2 A. 

Comparisons 2 C. 

Compound followed by simple subst. 
amepyacia . . . ἐργασία 14 A. 

Conditions, mixed, 3 D, 5 B, 9 Ὁ. 

Conversion of propositions to E ff. 

Cronus 6 A, 8 B. 

Cypria, the, 12 An. 


Dacdalusm1' Gy ὙΠ D1 ee 

Dative. clause virtually in, 3 Ὁ. /in 
pred. 5 A, 13 E. 7 after subst. ὑπη- 
ρετική 13 1). δόσις 14 D, δῶρα 15 A, 
ὑπηρεσία 14 D. / dat. followed by 
διά with acc. 3 D. 7 dat. of time 
τοῖς μεγάλοις Παναθηναίοις 6 C. 

Direct and indirect discourse inter- 
changed 5 Af., 15 Ef. 


Epexegetic infinitive without article 
ἐπεξιέναι 5 D, φιλεῖσθαι 11 A. 

Euthyphro, Introd. § 3. 

Euthyphro, the,— contents, Introd. 
§ 4. / place of, in the economy of 
Plato’s works, Introd. § 5. / the 
import of, Introd. § 6. / relation 
of, to the Apology, Introd. 88 5, 6.7 
date of, Introd. § 5. 

Examples, illustrative, τό τε δίκαιον 
καὶ τὸ ἄδικον καὶ καλὸν καὶ αἰσχρὸν 
καὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ κακόν, 7 D; φερό- 
μενόν τι καὶ φέρον καὶ ἀγόμενον καὶ 


113 


114 


ἄγον καὶ ὁρώμενον καὶ ὁρῶν το Α. 
See also αἰδώς, ἀριθμός, βοηλατική, 
βοῦς. γεωργός, δέος, ἰατρός, ἱππική, 
ἱππικός, ἵππος, κυνηγετική, κυνηγε- 
τικός, κύων, ναυπηγός, οἰκία, οἰκοδό- 
μος, πλοῖον. στρατηγός. τὸ βαρύτερόν 
τε καὶ κουφότερον, τὸ μεῖζον καὶ 
ἔλαττον, τροφή; ὑγίεια. 


Future, jussive, διηγήσει 6 C. / fut. 
mid. σπουδάσονται 3 E. 


Genitive with verbs of judicial action 
2 Ὁ. gen. abs. with ye, marking 
conditional force, 4 D. / gen. abs. 
with ὡς 3 B. 

Geometry, Greek, and Arithmetic, 
12 15) π-: 


Hephaestus 8 B. 

ΕΓΕΤΕ ὃ 8: 

Hestia 3 A. 

Hiatus τὸ C. 

Holiness defined 5 D, 6 E, 9 E, 12 E 
Gg DN τ. 5. {|| C14 Dara, 
τ ἘΠ" 

Homicide, justifiable, 4 B n. 

Hyperbaton πολύ 5 C, 14 B, τούτοις 
11 αὐτῶν 14 A. Cp.6A,9B. 


Ideas, the definitional essence, not 
hypostatic, 5 D, 6 D, 6 E. 

Imperative, making concession for 
the sake of argument, 9 D. / Attic 
forms of 3d person plural 9 D App. 

Imperfect of repeated action κατέπινεν 
6 A. /imperf. of verbs of saying 
6 Deis A: 

Infinitive abs. 3 B, 15 C. / articular 
inf. as subj. 2 C. / epexegetic inf. 
without art. 5 D, 11 A, 15 D. 


Litotes οὐκ ἀγεννῆ 2 C, od φαῦλον 2 C, 
ov σφόδρα 3 C, κακῶς͵ εἰδότες 4 E, 
οὐκ ὀλίγον ἔργον 9 B. 





ENGLISH INDEX 


Lyco 2 Bn. 


Middle future σπουδάσονται 3 E. 
Miletus 2 B, 12 B,-15 E: 
Monotheism, Introd. § 6. 


Naxus 4 C. 
Nominative in enumeration 15 A. 


Odd and even, as constituent parts of 
number, 12 C. 

Optative future after verbs of fearing 
ΠΕΣ 

Orato recta and obliqua interchanged 
5 Aste ΤῸ ἸῸΝ τὰ 


Palindromic constructions 3 C, 12 C, 
12. (Ce 

Paronomasia ἀλλὰ σὲ ἄλλος 2 B, 
Μέλητος . . . ἐπιμεληθείς 2 D, 5 C, 
ἔκτεινεν ὃ κτείνας 4 B, πρᾶγμα πράτ- 
των 4 E, Δαιδάλου. .. Ταντάλου 
11 E, 6 ποιητὴς ἐποίησεν ὃ ποιήσας 
120A. 

Participle omitted with τυγχάνω 8 A./ 
part. pres. with part. aor. 9 A./part. 
pres. conative 8 C. / part. with οὕτω 
= cond. clause 5 E. / part. in gen. 
agreeing with possess. adj. 2 C. / 
part. fut. of purpose with ὡς 3 B; 
without ws 2 C, 4 C. 

Particular for general in definitions 
δ 19. 

Passive and active, as categories, 
10 Af. 

Perfect for fut. perf. μεμάθηκα ο C. 

Periphrasis by part. and εἰμί to Β ff. 

Person, third, changing to first 5 A. 

Piety. See Holiness and ὅσιον. 


| Plato, Introd. § 1. 


Pluperfect indic. ending in -κη 14 Ὁ. 

Plural for singular ἢ δῆλα δή 4 B, 
οὐδέτερα ο D. 

Poetic color τῶν νέων τὰς βλάστας 
3 A, ποιητὴν θεῶν 3 Β. 

















Polyptoton τοῦτο τούτου 10 D, τούτοις 
TovTo II C. : 

Possessive adj. postponed for emphasis | 
mos 5 A, 5 C. 

Preposition repeated in comparison | 
2163 

Present for imperf. ὃ λέγω 12 A. / 
conative pres. 8 C. 

Prolepsis 4 E (és), 5 E, 13 A, 14 B. 

Proteus 15 D. 

Proverbs ἀφ᾽ “Eotias ἄρχεσθαι 3 A, 
πετόμενον διώκειν 4 A, χαμαὶ πεσεῖν 
2. ἢ. ᾿ 

Punctuation, new, 7 D, 14 A. 


ENGLISH INDEX 





Question asked by a part. τί καὶ ποι- 
ovvta 3 A, τί δρῶν 8 D. 








Religion, philosophy of, Introd. 
S$ 5, 6. 


Repetition in question, denoting sur- 
prise, 6 σός 4 A. 


Socrates, Introd. § 2. 
‘Stasinus(?), author of the Cyfrza, 
12 A. 


115 


State, the, as Mother, 2 C. 

Substantive used as adj. θής 15 D, 
πρεσβύτης 15 D./ simple subst., 
following a compound (as with 
verbs), amepyagia . . . ἐργασία 
14 A. / verbal subst. governing a 
case. See Dative. 


Tantalus 11 E. 
Thrasyllus 2 A ἢ. 
Titles of Platonic dialogues 2 A n. 


Uranus 6 A, 8 B. 


Verb omitted ὡς σὺ ἕτερον 2 B, ἀλλα 
σὲ ἄλλος 2 B, τίς οὗτος 2 Β, οὐκ 
ἀγεννῆ 2 C, τίνες οἱ διαφθείροντες 
2 C, ὀρθῶς 2 (, ὥσπερ σὺ φὴς σαυ- 
τοῦ 3 D, etc. 

Verbals in -τέος : ἀφετέος 15 D, δοτέος 
8 D, 8 E, σκεπτέος 9 E (625), 15 C. 

Virtue as knowledge, Introd. § 2. 

Vocative, beginning the clause, dis- 
regarded by the conj. 3 C. 


Zeusi5 Ε" 8 ἘΠ F224 


Hadley and Allen’s Greek Grammar 


By JAMES HADLEY (Yate) 


REVISED BY 
FREDERIC DE FOREST ALLEN (Harvarp) 


Cloth, 12mo, 422 pages. ὃ : : : Price, $1.50 


This standard Grammar not only presents the latest 
and best results of Greek studies, but also treats the 
language in the light received from comparative philology. 
Its comprehensive treatment of the principles and forms 
of the Greek language, together with its clear, analytic 
method, has made it at once an authoritative and exhaus- 
tive treatise for reference and at the same time a practical 
and popular text-book for class use. The fact that during 
all these years it has held its place and maintained its wide- 
spread popularity and extensive use in the leading classical 
schools and colleges of the country is in itself sufficient 
evidence of the excellence of the original work. 

Professor Hadley’s Greek Grammar was published in 
1860, and was founded on the scholarly and exhaustive 
work of the eminent German professor, Curtius, of the 
University of Kiel. 

Professor Allen brought to the work of revision the 
enthusiasm and critical method of an accomplished scholar, 
combined with the experience and skill of a successful 
teacher, and the result of his labors is gratifying alike to 
the publishers and friends of the Grammar. 

In its present form it is a practical work for beginners. 
Clearness of statement, accuracy of definition, and judicious 
arrangement recommend it for elementary classes; yet at 
the same time it is a complete and comprehensive manual 
for the advanced student. 


Copies of Hadley’s Greek Grammar will be sent, prepaid, to any address 
on receipt of the price by the Publishers: 
American Book Company 


New York , Cincinnati + Chicago 
(285) 


— se 


| 
4 





Pearson’s Greek Prose Composition 


By HENRY CARR PEARSON, A.B. (Harvard) 


Flexible Binding, 12mo, 187 pages . : ; . Price, 90 cents 





The purpose of this book is to combine a thorough and 
systematic study of the essentials of Greek syntax with 
abundant practice in translating connected Idiomatic 


-English into Greek, and to afford constant practice in 


writing Greek at sight. 

Part I contains, in graded lessons, the principal points 
of Greek syntax which require especial emphasis in Second 
Year Greek. These lessons are designed to serve as a 
partial review of the first year’s work and as an intro- 
duction to the composition work in connection with the 
reading of Xenophon’s Anabasis. 

Part II contains short, simple English sentences, based 
on Books I-IV of the Anabasis, designed to be used in 
connection with the reading of the text. 

Part III contains connected English prose, based on 
Books I-IV of the Anabasis. 

Review Lessons are introduced at intervals, containing 
a list of the important words and an enumeration of the 
principal constructions used in the preceding sentences. 

The book is provided with an English-Greek Vocabulary 
and contains a selection of recent college entrance exam- 
ination papers in Greek prose composition, for the purpose 
of supplying further material for practice and of familiar- 
izing the student with the nature of the examinations set 
by the various colleges. 


Copies sent, prepaid, to any address on receipt of the price. 
American Book Company 


New York . Cincinnati . Chicago 
(287) 


Orations of Lysias 
EpIteD witH InrRopUCTION, NOTES, AND APPENDICES 


By WILLIAM Ee WALT) Php: 
University of Michigan 
Cloth, 12mo, 240 pages. 5 : - : - Price, $1.25 
Text Edition - 5 : : . 30 cents 


The ten Orations contained in this book have been 
selected in the first place with reference to their merit, 
variety, and interest, and in the second place to illustrate 
the peculiar qualities and characteristics of Lysias as a 
rhetorician. 

The Notes, historical, critical, and grammatical, are 
very full and comprehensive. The latter, especially on the 
first two or three orations, have been made so advisedly. 
In many colleges Lysias is the first Greek author read. 
Hence it is believed that, at the start, such grammatical 
help will in no way be found harmful to the best prepared, 
and very useful and encouraging to those less fortunate in 
their preparation. 

The Introduction presents a brief account of the Life of 
Lysias, followed by a discussion of the style of his writing, 
the structure of his speeches, works, manuscripts, etc. A 
bibliography of helpful works in the study of Lysias is 
also given. Each of the orations included in the book is 
preceded by an introduction explaining its occasion and 
purpose. 

The Map at the beginning and the Biographical Index 
near the close of the book are intended to answer ques- 
tions on geography and biography that arise in the reading 
of the orations. 


Copies sent, prepaid, to any address on receipt of the price. 


American Book Company 


New York - Cincinnati . Chicago 
(297) 





Greek Dictionaries 


LIDDELL AND SCOTT'S GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON 


Revised and Enlarged. Compiled by Henry GrorGE LIDDELL, 
D.D., and Rogerr Scorr, D.D., assisted by HENnry DriIsLER, 
LL.D. Large Quarto, 1794 pages. Sheep. ; - $10.00 


The present edition of this great work has been thoroughly revised, 
and large additions made to it. The editors have been favored with the 
co-operation of many scholars and several important articles have been 
entirely rewritten. 


LIDDELL AND SCOTT’S GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON—Intermediate 


Revised Edition. Large Octavo, gio pages. 
Cloth, $3.50; Half Leather, $4.00 


This Abridgment is an entirely new work, designed to meet the 
ordinary requirements of instructors. It differs from the smaller 
abridged edition in that it is made from the last edition of the large 
Lexicon, and contains a large amount of new matter. 


LIDDELL AND SCOTT’S GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON—Abridged 
Revised Edition. Crown Octavo, 832 pages. Half Leather $1.25 


This Abridgment is intended chiefly for use by students in Secondary 
and College Preparatory Schools. 


THAYER’S GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti. ‘Translated, 
Revised, and Enlarged by JosepH HENRY THAYER, D.D., LL.D. 
Royal Quarto, 727 pages . Cloth, $5.00; Half Leather, $6.50 


This great work embodies and represents the results of the latest 
researches in modern philology and biblical exegesis. It traces histori- 
cally the signification and use of all words used in the New Testament, 
and carefully explains the difference between classical and sacred usage. 


YONGE’S ENGLISH-GREEK LEXICON 


By C. D. YoncE. Edited by HENRY Drister, LL.D. 
Royal Octavo, 903 pages. Sheep. : ᾿ Θ s $450 


AUTENRIETH’S HOMERIC DICTIONARY 


Translated and Edited by RoBperT P. Keep, Ph.D. New Edition. 
Revised by IsAAc FLAGG, Ph.D. 
I2mo, 312 pages. Illustrated. Cloth . ἃ . 5  ΦΙἴΩ 


Copies sent, prepaid, to any address on receipt of the price 


American Book Company 


New York . Cincinnati . Chicago 
(310) 


Classical Dictionaries 


HARPER’S DICTIONARY OF CLASSICAL LITERATURE AND 
ANTIQUITIES 


Edited by H. T. ῬΕΟΚ, Ph.D., Professor of the Latin Language 
and Literature in Columbia University. 
Royal Octavo, 1716 pages. Illustrated. 


One Vol. Cloth Ἢ - $6.00 TwoVols. Cloth . « “$700 
One Vol. Half Leather . 8.00 TwoVols. Half Leather . 10.00 


An encyclopaedia, giving the student, in a concise and intelligible 
form, the essential facts of classical antiquity. It also indicates the 
sources whence a fuller and more critical knowledge of these subjects 
can best be obtained. The articles, which are arranged alphabetically, 
include subjects in biography, mythology, geography, history, literature, 
antiquities, language, and bibliography. The illustrations are, for the 
most part, reproductions of ancient objects. The editor in preparing 
the book has received the co-operation and active assistance of the most 
eminent American and foreign scholars. 


SMITH’S DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES 


Edited by WILLIAM SmirH, Ph.D. Revised by CHARLES 

AnTHON, LL.D. Octavo, 1133 pages. Illustrated. Sheep $4.25 

Carefully revised, giving the results of the latest researches in the 
history, philology, and antiquities of the ancients. In the work of 
revision, the American editor has had the assistance of the most dis- 
tinguished scholars and scientists. 


STUDENTS’ CLASSICAL DICTIONARY 
A Dictionary of Biography, Mythology, and Geography. Abridged. 
By WILLIAM SMITH, D.C.L., LL.D. 
12mo, 438 pages. Cloth . - - - - «4 se) 25 
Designed for those schools and students who are excluded from the 
use of the larger Classical Dictionary, both by its size and its price. All 
names have been inserted which one would be likely to meet with at the 
beginning of classical study. 


Copies sent, prepaid, to any address on receipt of the price. 


American Book Company 


New York . Cincinnati . Chicago 
(311) 


Latin Literature of the Em pire 
Selected and Edited with Revised Texts and Brief Introductions 


By ALFRED GUDEMAN, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor of Classical Philology, University of Pennsylvania 


In Two Volumes. Cloth, 12mo. Per Volume, $1.80 


VoL. I—ProsE. Selections from Velleius, Curtius, Seneca Rhetor, 
Justinus (Trogus Pompeius), Seneca, Petronius, including Cena 
Trimalchionis, Pliny the Elder, Quintilian, Tacitus, Pliny the 
Younger, Suetonius, Minucius Felix Octavius, Apuleius—Ammianus 
Marcellinus, and Boethius. 

Voi. II—Poetry. Pseudo Vergiliana, Aetna, Manilius, Calpurnius, 
Nemesianus, Phaedrus, Lucan, Valerius Flaccus, Seneca, the 
Octavia (anonymous), Persius, Statius, Silius Italicus, Martial, 
Juvenal, Pervigilium Veneris, Ausonius, and Claudianus. 


The works of Latin Literature of the post-Augustan 
period have hitherto, with a few notable exceptions, been 


. virtually excluded from the classical curricula of colleges 


and universities. 

The present collection has been made primarily for the 
use of students in higher classes in colleges. The selec- 
tions will be found useful as collateral reading in con- 


nection with lectures on classical literature, and will also 


furnish suitable material for sight reading. 

The selections themselves contain nothing that is not 
eminently worthy of perusal. They are in every case 
sufficiently extensive to give a continuous and coherent 
story, which at the same time exhibits the author at his 
best. The text follows the best modern editions, the 
deviations from the standard texts being briefly recorded 
in critical appendices. 


Copies sent, prepaid, to any address on receipt of the price, 
American Book Company 


New York ° Cincinnati . Chicago 
(265) 


Introduction to the Study of 
Latin Inscriptions 


By JAMES) ὁ: EGBERT, πὶ Ph.D: 
Adjunct, Professor of Latin, Columbia University 


Half Morocco, large 12mo, 468 pages. With numerous illustrations and 


exact reproductions of inscriptions . 5 : . Price, $3 50 


This work is designed as a text-book for the use of 
students in Universities and Colleges, and also to furnish 
an account of this branch of archaeological study for 
general readers. It has been prepared in the belief that 
a knowledge of epigraphy forms an essential part of the 
equipment of a teacher of the classics, and that the sub- 
ject itself has become so important as to justify its intro- 
duction, in elementary form at least, into the curriculum 
of undergraduate studies. 

A distinctive feature of the book is the number and 
character of its illustrations,—there being over seven 
hundred cuts and diagrams of inscriptions, for the pur- 
pose of illustrating the text, and for practice in reading. 
Of these, over one hundred are photographic repro- 
ductions, showing the forms of the letters and the 
arrangement of the inscriptions. The work is also sup- 
plied with an exhaustive bibliography and valuable tables 


of abbreviations, archaisms, etc. 


Copies of Egbert's Latin Inscriptions will be sent, prepaid, to any address 
on receipt of the price by the Publishers ὁ 


American Book Company 


New York - Cincinnati ° Chicago 
(266) 





| 
| 
᾿ 





Roman Life in Latin Prose and Verse 


ILLUSTRATIVE READINGS FROM LATIN 
LITERATURE 


SELECTED AND EDITED BY 
Hei Ck ἘΠῚ ΤΌΣ 
Professor of the Latin Language and Literature in Columbia University. 
AND 
ROBERT ARROWSMITH, Pu.D. 


Cloth, 12mo, 256 pages . Α Ξ 5 : . Prices S00 


This work gives a representative survey of Latin Lit- 
erature, intended to be read in advanced academic or 
college work, as supplementary to a regular course in 
Latin Literature, or to be itself the fundamental work 
in such a course. The selections range from the popular 
songs which antedate written literature, to the Christian 


_hymns of the third century, covering the early dramatists, 


historians, orators, philosophers, the writers of satire and 
epigram, the lyric and epic poets, the collectors of anec- 
dotes, letter writers, and authors of prose works, and 
including other material of a popular nature, such as 


lampoons, parodies, epitaphs, advertisements, announce- 


ments of ball games, theatrical and gladiatorial notices, 
etc. To each selection is prefixed a concise account of 
the author, when known, and of his works, with a brief 
bibliography. For convenience in sight reading the text 
is provided with a translation of the more difficult words, 
and is followed by a fuller commentary on special points 
of interest. 


Copies of Roman Life in Latin Prose and Verse will be sent, prepaid, 
to any address on receipt of the price by the Publishers ὁ 
American Book Company 


New York . Cincinnati . Chicago 
(268) 


Cicero’s Laelius De Amicitia 


EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY 


JOEUNSKS CORD erie): 
Professor of Latin, Dartmouth College. 


REVISED EDITION 


Flexible cloth, 12mo, 109 pages. - : . Price, 70 cents 


In this Revised Edition of Cicero’s Laelius the editor’s 
aim in preparing the notes has been to furnish all explana- 
tions that seem necessary for the clear understanding of 
points of grammar, history, biography, and ancient cus- 
toms occurring in the book. In addition to this, the 
attention of the student has been called by translation 
and remark upon special passages, to the literary char- 
acter of the essay and to the clear and happy development 
of the subject. 

The Introduction gives an interesting historical sketch 
of Cicero’s life which cannot fail to impart a clear appre- 
ciation of the man and his work. This is followed by an 
analysis and summary of the Laelius which will prepare 
the student for an intelligent study of the text. 

Its convenient form and arrangement especially adapt 


this Revised Edition for use as a text-book. 


Copies of Lord’s Cicero’s Laelius De Amicitia will be sent, prepaid, to 
any address on receipt of the price by the Publishers : 


American Book Company 


New York . Cincinnati . Chicago 


"ΣΝ 


-σσ.------ 


Mythology 





GUERBER’S MYTHS OF GREECE AND ROME 
Cloth, 12mo, 428 pages. Illustrated . : : - - $1.50 


GUERBER’S MYTHS OF NORTHERN LANDS 
Cloth, 12mo, 319 pages. Illustrated . : : : : Τ 50 


GUERBER’S LEGENDS OF THE MIDDLE AGES 
Cloth, 12mo, 340 pages. Illustrated . : : - . 1.50 


By H. A. GUERBER, Lecturer on Mythology. 





These companion volumes present a complete outline 
of Ancient and Mediaeval Mythology, narrated with 
special reference to Literature and Art. They are uni- 
formly bound in cloth, and are richly illustrated with 
beautiful reproductions of masterpieces of ancient and 
modern painting and sculpture. 

While primarily designed as manuals for the use of 
classes in schools where Mythology is made a regular sub- 
ject of study and for collateral and supplementary reading 
in Classes studying literature or criticism, they are equally 
well suited for private students and for home reading. 
For this purpose the myths are told in aclear and charming 
style and in a connected narrative without unnecessary 
digressions. To show the wonderful influence of these 
ancient myths in literature, numerous and appropriate 
quotations from the poetical writings of all ages, from 
Hesiod’s ‘‘Works and Days” to Tennyson’ 5 ““Oenone,” 
have been included in the text in connection with the 
description of the different myths and legends. 

Maps, complete glossaries, and indexes adapt the 
manuals for convenient use in schools, libraries, or art 
galleries. 


Copies Ὁ, the above books will be sent, prepaid, to any address on receipt 
of the price by the Publishers < 


American Book Company 


New York . Cincinnati + Chicago 
(135) 


Outlines of Roman History 


FOR THE USE OF HIGH SCHOOLS AND ACADEMIES 


By WILLIAM C. MOREY, Ph.D. 
Professor of History and Political Science, University of Rochester 


Cloth, 12mo, 348 pages c : : : : . Price, $1.00 


In this history the rise, progress, and decay of the 
Roman Empire have been so treated as to emphasize the 
unity and continuity of the narrative: and the interrelation 
of the various periods is so clearly shown that the student 
appreciates the logical and systematic arrangement of the 
work. 

The scope of the book covers the whole period of 
Roman history from the foundation of the city to the fall 
of the Western Empire, all relevant and important facts 
having been selected to the exclusion of minute and un- 
necessary details. 

The work is admirably adapted to the special kind of 
study required by high school and academy courses, and 
avoids the two extremes which are sometimes found in text- 
books,—on the one hand, a too elementary and superficial 
treatment of the subject, suited only for children ; and on 
the other hand, a too elaborate and critical treatment, such 
as should be reserved for college classes. 

The character of the illustrative material is especially 
worthy of close examination. Thisis all drawn from authen- 
tic sources, and comprises—maps showing the location of 
every place mentioned in the text; plans of some of the most 
important battles; the more noted specimens of Roman 
architecture; and portraits of the most distinguished men 
of Rome, reproduced from authentic busts and statues and 
including an unusually complete collection of effigies of 
the Roman emperors. 


Copies sent, prepaid, to any address on receipt of price by the Publishers: 


American Book Company 


New York . Cincinnati e Chicago 
(136) 


Handbook of Greek and Roman History 


By GEORGES CASTEGNIER, B.S., B.L. 


Flexible Cloth, 12mo, 110 pages. fy ates . Price 50 cents 


The purpose of this little handbook is to assist the 
student of Greek and Roman History in reviewing subjects 
already studied in the regular text-books and in preparing 
for examinations. It will also be found useful for general 
readers who wish to. refresh their minds in regard to the 
leading persons and salient facts of ancient history. 

It is in two parts, one devoted to Greek, and the other 
to Roman history. The names and titles have been 
selected with rare skill, and represent the whole range of 
classical history. They are arranged alphabetically, and 
are printed in full-face type, making them easy to find. 
The treatment of each is concise and gives just the in- 
formation in regard to the important persons, places, and 
events of classical history which every scholar ought to 
know and remember, or have at ready command. 

Its convenient form and systematic arrangement 
especially adapt it for use as an accessory and reference 
manual for students, or as a brief classical cyclopedia for 


general readers. 





Copies of Castegnier’s Handbook of Greek and Roman History will be 
sent, prepaid, to any address on receipt of the price by the Publishers: 


American Book Com pany 


New York > Cincinnati . Chicago 
(127) 


Latin Dictionaries 


HARPER'S LATIN DICTIONARY 
Founded on the translation of ‘‘ Freund’s Latin-German Lexicon.” 
Edited by E. A. ANDREws, LL.D. Revised, Enlarged, and in great 
part Rewritten by CHARLTON T. Lewis, Ph.D., and CHARLES 
SHOR Dla) 
Royal Octavo, 2030 pages . Sheep, $6.50; Full Russia, $10.00 
The translation of Dr. Freund’s great Latin-German Lexicon, 
edited by the late Dr. E. A. Andrews, and published in 1850, has been 
from that time in extensive and satisfactory use throughout England and 
America. Meanwhile great advances have been made in the science on 
which lexicography depends. The present work embodies the latest 


advances in philological study and research, and is in every respect the 
most complete and satisfactory Latin Dictionary published. 


LEWIS’S LATIN DICTIONARY FOR SCHOOLS 
By CHARLTON T. LEwIs, Ph.D. 
Large Octavo, 1200 pages . Cloth, $450; Half Leather, $5.00 


This dictionary is not an abridgment, but an entirely new and inde- 
pendent work, designed to include all of the student’s needs, after 
acquiring the elements of grammar, for the interpretation of the Latin 
authors commonly read in school. 


LEWIS’S ELEMENTARY LATIN DICTIONARY 


By CHARLTON T. LEwis, Ph.D. 
Crown Octavo, 952 pages. Half Leather. : 5 . $2.00 


This work is sufficiently full to meet the needs of students in 
secondary or preparatory schools, and also in the first and second years’ 
work in colleges. 


SMITH’S ENGLISH-LATIN DICTIONARY 


A Complete and Critical English-Latin Dictionary. By WILLIAM 
SMmiTH, LL.D., and THEOPHILUS D. HALL, M.A., Fellow of Uni- 
versity College, London. With a Dictionary of Proper Names. 

Royal Octavo, 765 pages. Sheep . 5 - ὃ . $4.00 


Copies sent, prepaid, to any address on receipt of the price. 


American Book Company 


New York * Cincinnati . Chicago 
(278) 





ity 




















UYU MN 


bo 3 1158 00136 6151 


UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 








